[39101] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Tue Jun 26 15:23:25 2001
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: chance@dreamscope.com, nanog@merit.edu
From: rs@seastrom.com (Robert E. Seastrom)
Date: 26 Jun 2001 15:23:00 -0400
In-Reply-To: Sean Donelan's message of "26 Jun 2001 11:56:21 -0700"
Message-ID: <87bsnbrqp7.fsf@valhalla.seastrom.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> writes:
> 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.
Accepting a clearly defective route that may be a bellwether for a
router that has gone completely nuts seems a little bit naive and
trusting.
---rob
