On 31 Dec 2012, at 16:59, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Rob Shakir <r...@rob.sh> wrote: >> If we tear down the session based on a single bad UPDATE, then Bad Things™ >> happen. > > This is why I'm confused why you aren't more interested in giving the > vendor (ultimately, the operator) the choice to simply ignore bad > updates. > > You know that error-handling already leaves the RIB (network) in a bad > state. You might as well give the option to reset the session under > even fewer circumstances.
This is, of course, another route that we could go down, and has been discussed previously. If we receive an UPDATE we know that *something* to do with this path has changed, and if this UPDATE is erroneous know that *something* about the signalling path is not correct. If we do have other paths to that particular prefix, then treat-as-withdraw lets us use these. If we simply ignore the UPDATE, then we trust this path that has something suspect about it just as much as those that we have not seen any error in the messaging for. Cheers, r. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
