RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...

[Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>]

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.