Subject: RE: Router ID

From: "Abarbanel, Benjamin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:59:47 -0400

To All:
  Can we end this thread, it does not look like we are getting
any closure on this topic.

Thank You,
Ben

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abarbanel, Benjamin 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: 'John G. Scudder'; Abarbanel, Benjamin
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: Router ID
> 
> 
>  
> This is taken out of RFC1771 and current BGP draft 17.
> 
> "BGP Identifier:
> 
>          This 4-octet unsigned integer indicates the BGP Identifier of
>          the sender. A given BGP speaker sets the value of its BGP
>          Identifier to an IP address assigned to that BGP speaker.  "
> 
> Most IP addresses I am familiar with are routable. If not, 
> the description
> should not read "IP address", but only "4-octet unsigned integer".
> 
> Ben
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John G. Scudder [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:41 AM
> > To: Abarbanel, Benjamin
> > Cc: [email-masked]'
> > Subject: Re: Router ID
> > 
> > 
> > At 10:28 AM -0400 9/10/02, Abarbanel, Benjamin wrote:
> > >  Clearly, BGP Identifier must be routable for the protocol to
> > >  work and the session to be Established.
> > 
> > This is incorrect for several implementations with which I am 
> > familiar.
> > 
> > --John
> > 
>