Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
skh at nexthop.com
Thu Jan 17 23:27:47 UTC 2002
The state machine + option in MIB can make this option workable
via the specification. It is important to let user decide on
a peer basis what is worse.
Thank you very much for this input. Your input makes
the next choices for the BGP spec easier.
At 05:34 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Dave Israel wrote:
>On 1/17/2002 at 14:21:59 -0800, Jake Khuon said:
> > As for propogation of the bad prefix... well that soapbox has worn paint on
> > top. If people aren't going to bother following specs in the first place
> > I'm not sure a new spec will solve anything.
>It's a question of robustness; if the new spec includes a way to be
>tolerant of how the spec is (or can be) commonly abused, then the
>followers of the spec will not be at the mercy of those who deviate.
>In this case, I think that having the option to keep a session that
>gives bad routes up, and just dropping the route, is a good answer.
>That would allow the user to determine which is preferable for a given
>peer: possible corruption or certain disconnection.
More information about the NANOG