Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 05:37:02PM -0700, Tony Li: > > On Apr 16, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > If the concern is, this peer keeps sending me an update that is > > unparsable, ignoring it (and logging a note/alert/etc) seems ok. If > > the problem is that the neighbor did something quite wrong on the > > session as a whole more immediate action should be taken. > > > Sending something unparsable *is* quite wrong and just ignoring it is going > to lead to errors down the road. See previous comment about withdrawn routes > in updates.
We agree with Tony. Furthermore, if an update has a parsing or semantic error, what degree of confidence does one have that any portion that appears to be parsable is in fact correct? Obviously, there is merit in the problem statements, but the assumption that one could trust any part of a message exhibiting any errors seems like a rather poor choice. Without fundamental changes in how updates are handled, route-refresh seems like the only reliable way short of a reset to ensure consistency in recovering from a malformed update. Seems that effort is best directed at improving GR, ISSU, logging (syslog, more specific notifications & similar) and monitoring capabilities such as BMP that allow evaluation and tracking on a management host and other tools that aid in event diagnosis and isolation by operations folk. Developing negative testing suites to allow implementors and operators to test response to bugs that have been seen could also be useful. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
