North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RFC 1771, further thoughts
Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Tue, 26 June 2001, [email protected] wrote: > > In an attempt to return to an argument, rather than simple contradiction > > (ok, ok, it's far more polite and reasonable so far than that would imply, > > but I couldn't miss the cheap shot; apologies hereby tendered), perhaps we > > should consider *what* the RFC should say, if it should be changed? Going > > to the WG with a proposal in hand and a rationale to support it would seem > > to be the best path. > > One problem which makes the current practice worse in practice is the > cycling of the BGP session. Once you decide a BGP peer is "insane" why > start a fresh BGP session with the same peer, only to have them send the > same "bad" information again, and again, and again, and again. > > If folks want to isolate misbehaving peers, do an ADMIN SHUTDOWN on the > session. I suppose this would certainly be a reasonable SHOULD clause for the "hit the threshold" action. So, perhaps the action when hitting this should read something like "MUST send a NOTIFY and drop the session, and SHOULD admin-down the session and notify an operator" (for whatever value that would actually translate to in RFC-ese, please pardon my liberties). -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [email protected] http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer
|