Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)

An implementation that propagates _extra_ withdrawals shouldn't _hide_ behind "standards compliant". In fact, I don't think _is_ either "valid" or "standards compliant". There is no standard that says "send extra BGP withdrawals for routes that you are not currently announcing". It was just a bug in the implementation.

Nice to know you understand the cause well enough to assign blame. Mind telling us all what it is? randy