Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...

Tue Jun 26 19:09:11 UTC 2001

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What I would like is for my routers to not drop 4 of our 6 transit
providers, RFC, standard, not standard, whatever.  We've suggested to
our vendor that there atleast be some option to control this, we are
not at the core, we are an end user.  When following the RFC dictates
that our routing equipment loses connectivity to the internet, then I
say that there is a problem.  It's really nice that they can say
"it's not a bug, it's a feature", but this is a feature I'd at the
very least have the ability to turn off.

Matt

- --
Matt Levine
@Home: matt at deliver3.com
@Work: matt at eldosales.com
ICQ  : 17080004
PGP  : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Chance Whaley [mailto:chance at dreamscope.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:51 PM
To: 'Matt Levine'; nanog at merit.edu
Subject: RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...

>
> On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Matt Levine" wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> <sigh>...  If the RFC jumped off a cliff...
>

Pointless and irrelevant. Do you follow the accepted standard or not
- - that is what it comes down to. Bugs are bugs and everyone has them,
big deal. However, there is a general consensus about how things are
supposed to work - interoperability is somewhat difficult in this day
and age without it. So which is it? Follow the standards - be they
RFC, STD, draft, de facto, or de jure - or roll your own and pray?

No one has stated that closing the session is bad thing, and the
general feeling is that its a good thing. So what is it that you
want?

.chance
(rambling on only for himself and not representing anyone else)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOzjd18p0j1NsDQTPEQISJACg2/qve9ML8rE9nq6YAbXpz0Eph3kAoMjy
fb5ufjjcM2bcDgvYasBWIcP7
=64JJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----