Subject: [Idr] Violating the BGP std.

From: Mareline Sheldon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:02:32 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

If an implementation for some reason doesnt initiate a TCP connection to a remote external
peer and waits for that peer to initiate first, will this be treated as going against the RFC.
I understand that this can lead to higher convergence times, etc. But can this really be
called "violating the standards" ?

Just curious,
Regards,
Mareline S.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:54:07 -0500

The current BGP state machine has the concept of a "passive" peer.

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:54:07 -0500

-- 
Jeff Haas 
NextHop Technologies

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:05:57 -0500

This dialogue is currently a little loose in its use of terminology.

The concept of a passive peer is a configuration option and would ideally
be configurable on a peer-pair basis. In other words you could configure
one peer to be passive relative to one or more other peers specifically.

An implementation that arbitrarily (i.e. - for some unspecified reason)
chooses to behave passively relative to another peer introduces the very
real possibility of having two such peers arbitrarily deciding to behave in
a passive way toward each other.  These two BGP speakers would never
actually peer with each other.

From this, you can see that there would be a problem with the notion of a
strictly passive peer in general. It would not be able to peer with any other
passive BGP speaker.  In order for such a BGP speaker to participate in
a network with other BGP speakers, all other speakers with which it is
supposed to peer would have to be active.

--
Eric

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:05:57 -0500

--
Eric

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:51:41 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Mareline Sheld
> called "violating the standards" ?

If it can be configured to do so, then no.  If thats the only way it
works, then yes, it would be a violation.

Curtis

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:51:41 -0500

Curtis