On Apr 13, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Rob Shakir wrote: > It is therefore a requirement that within this reduced-impact > procedure any subsequent UPDATE messages that would result in further > session resets are ignored.
Hi, This may be a nit, but I think it's important to recall that UPDATE messages include withdrawn routes. These MUST NOT be ignored by the receiver. Doing so will simply result in forwarding loops or black holes. Perhaps this should at least be wordsmithed into something like 'ignore any reachability information in an UPDATE message, while processing the withdrawn routes in that same UPDATE message'. Independently of that, I think that trying to maintain a session in the face of multiple errors is a clear waste of time and effort on all parties. At some point, there is more effort and complexity spent on error recovery than on correct transmission, and that's just backwards. I support the suggestion of binary exponential back off on session restarts. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
