Did your BGP crash today?

Sat Aug 28 00:02:51 UTC 2010

On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:43:39 PDT, Clay Fiske said:
> 
>> If -everyone- dropped the session on a bad attribute, it likely wouldn't
>> make it far enough into the wild to cause these problems in the first
>> place.
> 
> That works fine for malformed attributes.  It blows chunks for legally formed
> but unknown attributes - how would you ever deploy a new attribute?

By making it optional. Seems to me that's pretty well covered by the Path Attributes section of the RFC.

A bad attribute isn't simply unknown, it's malformed. My apologies for not wording that more precisely.

I do see the wisdom of fine-grained control of this behavior. I'm just saying, it'd be nice if we could have correct behavior on the basics in the first place. :) 

-c