RFC 1771, further thoughts

Wed Jun 27 04:37:06 UTC 2001

Sean Donelan wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 June 2001, lucifer at lightbearer.com wrote:
> > In an attempt to return to an argument, rather than simple contradiction
> > (ok, ok, it's far more polite and reasonable so far than that would imply,
> > but I couldn't miss the cheap shot; apologies hereby tendered), perhaps we
> > should consider *what* the RFC should say, if it should be changed? Going
> > to the WG with a proposal in hand and a rationale to support it would seem
> > to be the best path.
> 
> One problem which makes the current practice worse in practice is the
> cycling of the BGP session.  Once you decide a BGP peer is "insane" why
> start a fresh BGP session with the same peer, only to have them send the
> same "bad" information again, and again, and again, and again.
> 
> If folks want to isolate misbehaving peers, do an ADMIN SHUTDOWN on the
> session.

I suppose this would certainly be a reasonable SHOULD clause for the "hit
the threshold" action. So, perhaps the action when hitting this should
read something like "MUST send a NOTIFY and drop the session, and SHOULD
admin-down the session and notify an operator" (for whatever value that
would actually translate to in RFC-ese, please pardon my liberties).
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer at lightbearer.com              http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer