-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What I would like is for my routers to not drop 4 of our 6 transit providers, RFC, standard, not standard, whatever. We've suggested to our vendor that there atleast be some option to control this, we are not at the core, we are an end user. When following the RFC dictates that our routing equipment loses connectivity to the internet, then I say that there is a problem. It's really nice that they can say "it's not a bug, it's a feature", but this is a feature I'd at the very least have the ability to turn off. Matt - -- Matt Levine @Home: matt@deliver3.com @Work: matt@eldosales.com ICQ : 17080004 PGP : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6C0D04CF - -----Original Message----- From: Chance Whaley [mailto:chance@dreamscope.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 2:51 PM To: 'Matt Levine'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Matt Levine" wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
<sigh>... If the RFC jumped off a cliff...
Pointless and irrelevant. Do you follow the accepted standard or not - - that is what it comes down to. Bugs are bugs and everyone has them, big deal. However, there is a general consensus about how things are supposed to work - interoperability is somewhat difficult in this day and age without it. So which is it? Follow the standards - be they RFC, STD, draft, de facto, or de jure - or roll your own and pray? No one has stated that closing the session is bad thing, and the general feeling is that its a good thing. So what is it that you want? .chance (rambling on only for himself and not representing anyone else) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOzjd18p0j1NsDQTPEQISJACg2/qve9ML8rE9nq6YAbXpz0Eph3kAoMjy fb5ufjjcM2bcDgvYasBWIcP7 =64JJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----