http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-operational-message-00
On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:24 PM, Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez <> wrote: > I completely agree with the need to send as much root-cause info as > possible. I think that the user (i.e. admin of the router receiving > wrecked BGP-4 updates) has to be informed. But I also think it would > not do any harm to inform the neighbour causing the crash (à la "you > killed me with this packet!!!"). This information has to be used to > inform (via trap, log, etc.) the admin of the router causing the > damage, so that he takes action ASAP. > > My .2 cents, > /Pedro A. Aranda > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:05 PM, George, Wes > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've read this draft and I think it is useful and ready to proceed. >> Two minor comments: >> >> In section 4, it may be useful to specifically note the need for a >> flag, trap, or other notification method (to the user, rather than >> to the neighbor) to identify when BGP is in the process of >> recovering RIB consistency, including which routes are considered >> inconsistent (if this info is available). While section 6 discusses >> the need for more information about the state of BGP when it is >> recovering from these errors, I saw no reference to this specific >> item. Since this is likely to be a transient state, it is also >> helpful to log this information to aid in root cause analysis of >> transient problems. -- Jakob Heitz. _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
