On 1/17/2002 at 17:42:53 -0500, Vijay Gill said:

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Dave Israel wrote:

...

It's a question of robustness; if the new spec includes a way to be tolerant of how the spec is (or can be) commonly abused, then the followers of the spec will not be at the mercy of those who deviate.

In this case, I think that having the option to keep a session that gives bad routes up, and just dropping the route, is a good answer. That would allow the user to determine which is preferable for a given peer: possible corruption or certain disconnection.

If you have a "bad route" how do you know the rest of the update is good?

You don't. That's why I suggested an option. If you're talking about somebody who lives in the core, then you probably never want to trust somebody who hands you a bad update. If, however, you're on the edge, you might decide to keep trying to talk to somebody who hands you a bad update, at least until the error rate reaches some threshold (or the other router goes down in flames), rather than turn off what may be your only remaining connectivity and sulk alone in your corner. -Dave