withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
randy at psg.com
Mon Jan 13 17:15:00 UTC 1997
> An implementation that propagates _extra_ withdrawals shouldn't _hide_
> behind "standards compliant". In fact, I don't think _is_ either
> "valid" or "standards compliant". There is no standard that says "send
> extra BGP withdrawals for routes that you are not currently announcing".
> It was just a bug in the implementation.
Nice to know you understand the cause well enough to assign blame. Mind
telling us all what it is?
More information about the NANOG