
On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Chance Whaley" wrote:
> How would you like Vendor X to liberally handle the situation? There is
> a point when being too liberal causes issue - like this one. The idea is
> that if the original peer followed the spec it would of been contained
> at the source and this would of never happened. Where is the line?
> Something about GIGO comes to mind.

I would prefer implementations (not vendors) reject the one router which
they don't like, and accept the other 100,000+ routes in the global Internet
without flapping BGP sessions.

Killing 100,000 routes because you don't like one seems a bit excessive.





