Subject: RE: INFORM proposal and MP-BGP (RFC 2858)

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:19:23 -0400

: "If a BGP speaker receives from its peer a ROUTE-REFRESH message with
   the <AFI, SAFI> that the speaker didn't advertise to the peer at the
   session establishment time via capability advertisement, the speaker
   shall ignore such a message." - RFC2918, "Route Refresh Capability for
BGP-4"

shouldn't this be an error/notification???

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:25:42 -0400

> shouldn't this be an error/notification???

The operational community continues to demand resiliency from the BGP
protocol.  If we can avoid sending a NOTIFICATION and gracefully
deal with someone elses buggy code, thats a Good Thing.

Sending an INFORM would be nice here, if such a thing existed.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Pedro Roque Marques <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:45:04 -0700 (PDT)

Jeffrey Haas writes:

> The operational community continues to demand resiliency from the
> BGP protocol.

I believe you get less resiliency, not more, from accepting corrupted
messages. If you have a peer that is sending you a given NLRI and it
didn't negociate it then either:
1) The peers state machine is completly out of wack, case in which you
want to reset it.
2) It is a corrupted message, case in which you wish to reset it.

>  If we can avoid sending a NOTIFICATION and gracefully

> Sending an INFORM would be nice here, if such a thing existed.

Personally i believe that this message is completly unnecessary.

  Pedro.