nanog mailing list archives
Time to revise RFC 1771
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: 26 Jun 2001 11:48:29 -0700
RFC 1771's guidance on what to do with a announcement may have been filled with good intentions, however the few times it has been executed, it seems to create excessive harm to the Internet. I propose it is time to revise RFC 1771. WHEREAS, the error handling of RFC1771 is invoked where there is a dispute between two implementations of BGP. WHEREAS, these disputes may be caused by any number of reasons, including both implementations doing what they each believe are reasonable actions. WHEREAS, the resolution of these disputes may be time consuming, RESOLVED, the error handling mechanism should be revised to reject only the portion of the announcement in dispute instead of disrupting the entire BGP session. This would result in a small number of networks, most likely those who originated the disputed announcement or are closely associated with the announcer, being disrupted. But the portion of the Internet with generally accepted announcements would not be affected. This limits the colleteral damage from these disputed announcements to the small number of networks in dispute.
Current thread:
- Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Dave Israel (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Dave Israel (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Dave Israel (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Clayton Fiske (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Sean Donelan (Jun 26)
- Re: Time to revise RFC 1771 Barney Wolff (Jun 26)
