|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
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 for consideration. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [email protected] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
|