[39097] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Tue Jun 26 15:08:29 2001
Date: 26 Jun 2001 11:56:21 -0700
Message-ID: <20010626185621.11291.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: chance@dreamscope.com
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
X-Sent-From: sean@donelan.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Chance Whaley" wrote:
> How would you like Vendor X to liberally handle the situation? There is
> a point when being too liberal causes issue - like this one. The idea is
> that if the original peer followed the spec it would of been contained
> at the source and this would of never happened. Where is the line?
> Something about GIGO comes to mind.
I would prefer implementations (not vendors) reject the one router which
they don't like, and accept the other 100,000+ routes in the global Internet
without flapping BGP sessions.
Killing 100,000 routes because you don't like one seems a bit excessive.
