Le 03/01/2013 20:36, Enke Chen a écrit : > hi, Jeff: > > On 1/3/13 11:22 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > > [snip] > >> >>> Respectfully, I think you're misunderstanding my position completely. My >>> point is that a reasonable implementation cannot possibly live up to the >>> expectations that you're setting up here. To be specific, once an >>> implementation loses the syntactic parsing of the data stream, >>> realistically, the session is corrupt and an eventual reset is inevitable. >>> Or, in other words, BGP cannot possible ignore bad messages. That's not >>> the way it works. >> Of course BGP can ignore bad messages. To say otherwise is simply >> telling a lie because you haven't made a good argument. >> >> > > A good argument (IMO) has been made in the error handling draft: > > --------- > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling/ > > 4. Operational Considerations > Note that "treat-as-withdraw" is different from discarding an UPDATE > message. The latter violates the basic BGP principle of incremental > update, and could cause invalid routes to be kept. (See also > Appendix A.) > ---------
+1 mh > > -- Enke > > > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
