[39112] 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 16:34:09 2001
Date: 26 Jun 2001 13:33:48 -0700
Message-ID: <20010626203348.24714.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
X-Sent-From: sean@donelan.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Chance Whaley" wrote:
> Pointless and irrelevant. Do you follow the accepted standard or not -
> that is what it comes down to. Bugs are bugs and everyone has them, big
> deal. However, there is a general consensus about how things are
> supposed to work - interoperability is somewhat difficult in this day
> and age without it. So which is it? Follow the standards - be they RFC,
> STD, draft, de facto, or de jure - or roll your own and pray?
>
> No one has stated that closing the session is bad thing, and the general
> feeling is that its a good thing. So what is it that you want?
It is a bad thing, and something most other protocols do NOT do. A
bad TELNET escape sequence is an error, it doesn't shutdown the TELNET
session. A bad MIME encoding is an error, it doesn't shutdown a SMTP
session. A bad route is an error, it SHOULD NOT shutdown a BGP session.
Cisco should fix their implementation AND the RFC should be revised not
to require tearing down the BGP session because of one bad route.
