withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)

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?

randy