On 13/04/2012 21:24, Tony Li wrote: > 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 messages include withdrawn routes.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.
I'm trying to figure out which is worse: accepting a semantically known corrupt UPDATE withdraw message or ignoring it. Also, I suspect that this is getting into non-deterministic territory. If you're seeing a continuous stream of corrupt updates for different prefixes from a peer, that probably indicates a more serious problem, for which session teardown might be a more appropriate fix than ignoring broken nlri messages. > 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 withdrawn routes in that same UPDATE message'.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. this is an important point: at what stage do you give up on a session? The draft has some discussion on this, but it might be useful to have a clearer statement on what to do when you see a continuous stream of garbage. Nick _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
