Hi,

we've to do some work on our BGP-Routers.
So may be it's time to update to 4.16?
BGP-Routers are RB1000 Running 3.30 Routing-Test.
Is it time to give 4.16 a chance?

Stefan

Hi,

we've to do some work on our BGP-Routers.
So may be it's time to update to 4.16?
BGP-Routers are RB1000 Running 3.30 Routing-Test.
Is it time to give 4.16 a chance?

Stefan

What kind router your peer? Because 4.x doesn't work with non mikrotik bgp peers.

That is false. It works with any BGP speaking peer.

Hi,

we've to do some work on our BGP-Routers.
So may be it's time to update to 4.16?
BGP-Routers are RB1000 Running 3.30 Routing-Test.
Is it time to give 4.16 a chance?

Stefan

What kind router your peer? Because 4.x doesn't work with non mikrotik bgp peers.

Ciscos.

That is false. It works with any BGP speaking peer.

What's your ROS-version? Full-Feed? Uptime?

Background: We struggeled a lot until 3.30/Routing-Test. So we want to
jump to a proved stable version. We use gloves to touch our BGP-Routers...

Inter-vendor BGP connections can throw up some quirky bugs from time to time but i'm not aware of any between MT and Cisco, we have 3 routers each with their own bgp peer to various cisco box's and they are ok

Only known problem between Cisco and MT BGP is, when Cisco is running very old software that does not support 4-byte AS number.

Only known problem between Cisco and MT BGP is, when Cisco is running very old software that does not support 4-byte AS number.

And mikrotik why doesn't support automatical fallback to old software, when the connection doesn't work fine on 4-byte AS capability?

It does everything according to RFC, in fact it is a cisco bug in older software.

This thread:

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php ... bgp+memory

claims there are memory/stability problems in 4.16. I've no memory problems in 3.30.