Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-spaghetti-idr-bgp-sendholdtimer-05.txt

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Gyan,

The BGP Slow peer solution was never standardized and so Cisco is the only
>> vendor with this option.
>>
>
Not really.

As example:

https://support.huawei.com/enterprise/en/doc/EDOC1000154771/6fc8ff5e/configuring-slow-peer-detection

I have heard that there are at least a few more implementations of this,
but I am not authorized to disclose them in public. It's a vendor's secret
sauce. Features like this make one BGP implementation to be superior to
others when it comes to comparing scaling and speed.

So that is still a gap that maybe worth standardization.
>>
>
I don't think so. This is a local implementation feature.

Sure we could add a BGP level indicator, but first one would need to
document what's wrong with current detection methods.

> > Maybe a similar detection mechanism could be used to detect the zero
window.

Obviously a stuck peer is a special case of a slow peer so it does get
detected automatically. After detection it get's reported too if needed.

The only point this draft brings is that some of us think that BGP sessions
to peers which are stuck should be dropped automatically.

Thx,
Robert