From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)

...

"William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com> 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?

Looking carefully at what I wrote, I do not see anything about "cause", only the validity (and standards compliance) of an implementation that displays this "effect". Obviously, I made the assumption that these effects were the results of an implementation, rather than a fabrication or a figment of Craig's imagination. Such a buggy implementation would receive "blame", and a fix would be expected. Perhaps there is some disagreement as to the existence of the phenomenon? Randy, do you disagree that there are routers: - sending more BGP withdrawals than announcements? - sending BGP withdrawals for routes that they have not announced? - passing along withdrawals from other routers' announcements seen on other interfaces, even though those routes are not announced by this router? That was my understanding of the effect, and Craig's use of the word "extra". If I am in error, please publically correct my understanding in detail, giving all the facts upon which you rely. Also, please give a reference (section and paragraph) where these phenomenon are specified as "valid" in one of our "standards". Thank you. WSimpson@UMich.edu Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 BSimpson@MorningStar.com Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2