[43419] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP noise tonight? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher A. Woodfield)
Tue Oct 9 14:34:07 2001
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:34:22 -0400
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20011009143422.D1042@semihuman.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0110091325120.5740-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
From: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Exactly - if the RFC is updated, there's no ambiguity re: how to design
new BGP software.
At this point, the RFC says to do what was at one time considered to be
the right thing, which was demonstrated most recently on Sunday night to
be exactly the wrong thing. Thus, the RFC should be updated to account
for what has been determined the "new" right way of handling malformed
prefixes. As a precedent, refer to the change in attitudes in the RFCs
towards open SMTP relaying - five years ago it was SOP, today it'll get
you blackholed.
-Chris
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:30:34PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > Should someone think about possibly updating the RFC?
> >
> > you are stuck in the situation that operators are faced in deciding
> > what software to run on their network. if the internet-draft is updated
> > you still need vendors to change their behavior and people to upgrade.
>
> I agree, it is only one step on a long road. But you have to take
> the first step, if nothing else, so when a "new" vendor releases a
> product it won't include the old behavior. Or at least, an officially
> revised RFC gives customers another stick to beat their vendor.
>
>
--
---------------------------
Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
