[39118] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A. Steenbergen)
Tue Jun 26 17:10:25 2001
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:09:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard A. Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20010626201939.24248.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0106261649080.29677-100000@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 26 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
> There will always be cases where Vender A thinks they are correct and
> Vendor B thinks they are correct, and they differ. And you are
> correct, either the sender has done something wrong or the receiver
> has done something wrong, hence the Internet motto.
But there there should be no room for debate, one side is right and the
other side is wrong. If there is really a grey area, the solution is to
fix the wording of the standards document, not to try and overlook the
problem.
I agree that in this case it is possible to have ignored the bad AS PATH
and drop the route without disturbing the session originating the bad
information. This is one specific example could probably have been handled
better with a non-fatal notification (with big red lights and buzzers).
However, it was unacceptable for that router to propagate the bad
information to others.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
