[129150] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did your BGP crash today?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clay Fiske)
Fri Aug 27 20:03:06 2010
From: Clay Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
In-Reply-To: <6994.1282942637@localhost>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:02:51 -0700
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:43:39 PDT, Clay Fiske said:
>=20
>> If -everyone- dropped the session on a bad attribute, it likely =
wouldn't
>> make it far enough into the wild to cause these problems in the first
>> place.
>=20
> That works fine for malformed attributes. It blows chunks for legally =
formed
> but unknown attributes - how would you ever deploy a new attribute?
By making it optional. Seems to me that's pretty well covered by the =
Path Attributes section of the RFC.
A bad attribute isn't simply unknown, it's malformed. My apologies for =
not wording that more precisely.
I do see the wisdom of fine-grained control of this behavior. I'm just =
saying, it'd be nice if we could have correct behavior on the basics in =
the first place. :)=20
-c
