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: Jared Mauch
- Date: Tue Jun 26 17:38:11 2001
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Chance Whaley" wrote:
> > 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 want?
> It is a bad thing, and something most other protocols do NOT do. A
> bad TELNET escape sequence is an error, it doesn't shutdown the TELNET
> session. A bad MIME encoding is an error, it doesn't shutdown a SMTP
> session. A bad route is an error, it SHOULD NOT shutdown a BGP session.
> Cisco should fix their implementation AND the RFC should be revised not
> to require tearing down the BGP session because of one bad route.
I suggest submitting your modifications to the ietf idr bgp wg
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from email@example.com
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.