nanog mailing list archives
Re: Time to revise RFC 1771
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 26 Jun 2001 13:55:46 -0700
On Tue, 26 June 2001, Andrew Partan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:48:29AM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:RESOLVED, the error handling mechanism should be revised to reject only the portion of the announcement in dispute instead of disrupting the entire BGP session.The big problem here is that it may be impossible to tell that just this bit of <goo> is bad and that everything received after that is fine.
I'm willing to accept there are cases you can not recover, and the only acceptable alternative is to reboot (gee, Microsoft thinks that is the solution to everything). My objection is RFC 1771 does not give implementations the ability to continue when they can. Aborting the BGP session should be an option, and extreme option, but not the ONLY option. So should throwing away the bad data, alerting, and continuing with good data.
Current thread:
- Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Dave Israel (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Dave Israel (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Dave Israel (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Barney Wolff (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Richard A. Steenbergen (Jun 26)