[45130] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Susan Hares)
Thu Jan 17 18:28:47 2002
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20020117182328.02335ab8@mail.nexthop.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 18:27:47 -0500
To: davei@biohazard.demon.digex.net
From: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Cc: khuon@NEEBU.Net (Jake Khuon), nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <15431.20837.832578.42314@biohazard.demon.digex.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Dave:
The state machine + option in MIB can make this option workable
via the specification. It is important to let user decide on
a peer basis what is worse.
Thank you very much for this input. Your input makes
the next choices for the BGP spec easier.
Thanks again!!
Sue Hares
At 05:34 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Dave Israel wrote:
>On 1/17/2002 at 14:21:59 -0800, Jake Khuon said:
>
> > As for propogation of the bad prefix... well that soapbox has worn paint on
> > top. If people aren't going to bother following specs in the first place
> > I'm not sure a new spec will solve anything.
>
>It's a question of robustness; if the new spec includes a way to be
>tolerant of how the spec is (or can be) commonly abused, then the
>followers of the spec will not be at the mercy of those who deviate.
>
>In this case, I think that having the option to keep a session that
>gives bad routes up, and just dropping the route, is a good answer.
>That would allow the user to determine which is preferable for a given
>peer: possible corruption or certain disconnection.
>
>-Dave
