Robert, > -----Original Message----- > Algorithm: > ---------- > > If such counter get's exceeded session get's reset. > > There is tracking (counter++ operation) and one additional conditional if > statement. There is no analysis what so ever. >
Let's consider following scenario: a router in no-longer-kingdom far-away sends malformed update that somehow manages to slip through multiple intermediate routers and comes to me via a peer that sends me few dozen thousands of other prefixes (everyone has seen this in the wild not too long ago). I increase "error tracking counter", the far-away router for some reason sends update again, I increase counter again, at some point I reach threshold. Clearly, resetting my session with a peer that sends me large number of "good" prefixes isn't to my advantage, especially that it won't repair distant router. My personal preference would be to ignore such errors until kingdom come. On the other hand, if a session is reset (due to errors per other rules) there's chance that problems will occur again. Rather than bouncing session for extended period, I'd prefer such troublesome peers to stay down. We spoke about this behaviour few times, but I'm not sure if we have reached consensus. /iLya _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
