Jakob, On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 06:14:17PM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > From: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 02:29:13AM +0000, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) wrote: > > > Sending a peer-down followed by a peer-up seems reasonable to me. > > > Changing these requires a new OPEN message to neighbors, so everything > > > is going to bounce anyway. > > > > I think so as well. > > > > But what of the route monitoring messages? > > I would leave those alone. Sending them again adds no new information. > The BMP server can switch the ASN and BGP-ID on its own if it wants.
That's my impression too. However, if the implementation treats the peer-down as an implicit flush it won't work cleanly. This means that something in the header needs to indicate "I'm updating some state, hold on to your RMs". -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
