nanog mailing list archives
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
From: randy () psg com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 97 09:15 PST
An implementation that propagates _extra_ withdrawals shouldn't _hide_ behind "standards compliant". In fact, I don't think _is_ either "valid" or "standards compliant". There is no standard that says "send extra BGP withdrawals for routes that you are not currently announcing". It was just a bug in the implementation.
Nice to know you understand the cause well enough to assign blame. Mind telling us all what it is? randy - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) William Allen Simpson (Jan 13)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Randy Bush (Jan 13)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) William Allen Simpson (Jan 13)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) John W. Stewart III (Jan 13)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Dorian R. Kim (Jan 13)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Jeff Young (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Jon Zeeff (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) John W. Stewart III (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Hank Nussbacher (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Tony Li (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Dorian R. Kim (Jan 14)