nanog mailing list archives
Re: Time to revise RFC 1771
From: Barney Wolff <barney () databus com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:02:20 -0400
I must be missing something. I thought the first duty of a routing protocol was to avoid loops, even above maintaining reachability. Are we really sure that accepting all but the noticeably bad routes from a berserk neighbor would not cause loops? Also, if we damp bgp routes, surely we should damp bgp sessions too? There's no need to retry instantly. Barney Wolff
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)