On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 01:33:48PM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Chance Whaley" wrote:
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?
It is a bad thing, and something most other protocols do NOT do. A bad TELNET escape sequence is an error, it doesn't shutdown the TELNET session. A bad MIME encoding is an error, it doesn't shutdown a SMTP session. A bad route is an error, it SHOULD NOT shutdown a BGP session.
Cisco should fix their implementation AND the RFC should be revised not to require tearing down the BGP session because of one bad route.
I suggest submitting your modifications to the ietf idr bgp wg for consideration. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.