hi, Jeff:
On 1/3/13 11:22 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
[snip]
Respectfully, I think you're misunderstanding my position completely. My point
is that a reasonable implementation cannot possibly live up to the expectations
that you're setting up here. To be specific, once an implementation loses the
syntactic parsing of the data stream, realistically, the session is corrupt and
an eventual reset is inevitable. Or, in other words, BGP cannot possible
ignore bad messages. That's not the way it works.
Of course BGP can ignore bad messages. To say otherwise is simply
telling a lie because you haven't made a good argument.
A good argument (IMO) has been made in the error handling draft:
---------
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling/
4. Operational Considerations
Note that "treat-as-withdraw" is different from discarding an UPDATE
message. The latter violates the basic BGP principle of incremental
update, and could cause invalid routes to be kept. (See also
Appendix A.)
---------
-- Enke
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
