nanog mailing list archives
Re: Time to revise RFC 1771
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 26 Jun 2001 19:29:25 -0700
On Tue, 26 June 2001, Clayton Fiske wrote:
Plus, a CRC error can occur between two valid, compliant, bug-free implementations. A bad route, by definition, can't. We're not talking about external faults here, but broken implementations. When one side of a protocol session simply breaks the rules, I don't think it's reasonable to say that the other side needs to be "fixed" to accept that breakage. Fix the broken side.
Uhm, lets see what you think of this press announcement. "Pardon us, we must shutdown the Internet will we decide whose software needs to be fixed. Don't worry, as soon as it is fixed, the Internet will be rebooted." Yep, somebody's implementation was broken. One part of the response is to fix their implementation. While we waiting to get the fix, the rest of the Internet should not have been flapping.
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)