Subject: Re: [GROW] [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-06.txt

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:05:34 -0800

On Jan 3, 2013, at 1:48 PM, "Chris Hall" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> However bad or difficult to clean up, what if that's not as bad as the
> alternative ?

Clearly, the treat-as-withdraw alternative is better.  You're not leaving bogus state in the rest of the network.

Tony

---

From: "Chris Hall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:48:52 -0000

Robert Raszuk wrote (on Thu 03-Jan-2013 at 20:18 +0000):
> To: Jeff Wheeler
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> > Ignore-bad-message is very simple and provides a band-aid for more
> > problems, including unforeseen problems.

> How are you going to clean the NLRIs in your network (both transit
> or stub) which were withdrawn in the messages your BGP
> implementation declared "bad" and decided to ignore ?

It's a good question.  But not, I think, the entire question.

[So: all alone somewhere up a remote, cold mountain you slip and your
arm gets stuck firmly in a crevice.  Clearly, you are fond of it and
hacking it off has its drawbacks.  But compared to hypothermia... ?
Mind you, if mountaineering standards are dead-set against the hacking
off of arms, perhaps your mountaineering equipment won't include a
knife :-)]

Chris