North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
- From: Matt Levine
- Date: Tue Jun 26 15:22:31 2001
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
What I would like is for my routers to not drop 4 of our 6 transit
providers, RFC, standard, not standard, whatever. We've suggested to
our vendor that there atleast be some option to control this, we are
not at the core, we are an end user. When following the RFC dictates
that our routing equipment loses connectivity to the internet, then I
say that there is a problem. It's really nice that they can say
"it's not a bug, it's a feature", but this is a feature I'd at the
very least have the ability to turn off.
ICQ : 17080004
PGP : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF
- -----Original Message-----
From: Chance Whaley [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Matt Levine'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
> On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Matt Levine" wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> <sigh>... If the RFC jumped off a cliff...
Pointless and irrelevant. Do you follow the accepted standard or not
- - that is what it comes down to. Bugs are bugs and everyone has them,
big deal. However, there is a general consensus about how things are
supposed to work - interoperability is somewhat difficult in this day
and age without it. So which is it? Follow the standards - be they
RFC, STD, draft, de facto, or de jure - or roll your own and pray?
No one has stated that closing the session is bad thing, and the
general feeling is that its a good thing. So what is it that you
(rambling on only for himself and not representing anyone else)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----