[28900] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: That pesky AS path corruption bug...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kai Schlichting)
Tue May 23 13:46:31 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000523133645.029f3c50@mail.speedus.net>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:42:58 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Kai Schlichting <kai@pac-rim.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.1000523132209.5819E-100000@mailserver-ng.cs.
umbc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At Tuesday 01:26 PM 5/23/00 , Vijay Gill wrote:
>This is a hack. We do not need more cruft added on, rather, what we need
>is correct behavior. The correct behavior being - if you see a corrupt/ a
>malformed update from a peer, send a notify and drop the session. Seems
>fairly simple to me.
>
>The above suggestion of your fails in case of route servers.
>
>Insist on correct behavior, not on cruftery.
...reading the host requirements RFC and its definition of the
robustness principle: Why was the behavior above chosen over the
more conceivable and robust "ignore (log) corrupted message, continue
with regular operation" ? Given route flap dampening, dropping the BGP
session is hardly the desirable outcome here. On that note: under
what circumstances should or shouldn't the BGP session come back up
without mnual intervention?
bye,Kai
