[39144] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1771, further thoughts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Tue Jun 26 23:10:02 2001
Date: 26 Jun 2001 20:09:27 -0700
Message-ID: <20010627030927.7713.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: lucifer@lightbearer.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, lucifer@lightbearer.com wrote:
> In an attempt to return to an argument, rather than simple contradiction
> (ok, ok, it's far more polite and reasonable so far than that would imply,
> but I couldn't miss the cheap shot; apologies hereby tendered), perhaps we
> should consider *what* the RFC should say, if it should be changed? Going
> to the WG with a proposal in hand and a rationale to support it would seem
> to be the best path.
One problem which makes the current practice worse in practice is the
cycling of the BGP session. Once you decide a BGP peer is "insane" why
start a fresh BGP session with the same peer, only to have them send the
same "bad" information again, and again, and again, and again.
If folks want to isolate misbehaving peers, do an ADMIN SHUTDOWN on the
session.
