Non-default BGP port

[Matthias Waehlisch]

Hi,

do I see it correctly that the destination port to establish the BGP
session cannot be changed?

I would really like to have something like

neighbor 1.2.3.4 port 5001 as 64512;


Any reason not to support this?



Thanks
matthias

[Gary T. Giesen]

No other BGP implementation that I know of supports it. Do you have a
specific reason for wanting to change the BGP port?

GTG

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Matthias Waehlisch

Post by Matthias Waehlisch
Hi,
do I see it correctly that the destination port to establish the BGP
session cannot be changed?
I would really like to have something like
neighbor 1.2.3.4 port 5001 as 64512;
Any reason not to support this?
Thanks
matthias
--
Matthias Waehlisch
. Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
. Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net

[Alexander Demenshin]

Post by Gary T. Giesen
No other BGP implementation that I know of supports it.

Quagga does.

Best regards,
Alexander.

[joel jaeggli]

Post by Gary T. Giesen
No other BGP implementation that I know of supports it. Do you have a
specific reason for wanting to change the BGP port?

the typical rational involves two bgp processes on the same host...

listening on a non-default typically means only one side can initiate a
connection.

Post by Gary T. Giesen
GTG
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Matthias Waehlisch

Post by Matthias Waehlisch
Hi,
do I see it correctly that the destination port to establish the BGP
session cannot be changed?
I would really like to have something like
neighbor 1.2.3.4 port 5001 as 64512;
Any reason not to support this?
Thanks
matthias
--
Matthias Waehlisch
. Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
. Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net

[Ondrej Zajicek]

Post by Matthias Waehlisch
Hi,
do I see it correctly that the destination port to establish the BGP
session cannot be changed?
I would really like to have something like
neighbor 1.2.3.4 port 5001 as 64512;
Any reason not to support this?

It is oversight.

It will be in the next version, based on the patch from João Taveira Araújo:

https://www.mail-archive.com/bird-***@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/msg03485.html