Re: [Idr] [GROW] draft-snijders-idr-shutdown-00: Drop a line in the peer's syslog at shutdown

["Neil J. McRae" <[e-mail]>]

It's a wonderfully useless solution when it could be a wonderfully useful solution - it's just more  operational noise that we already have and we will start filtering like everything else. 

Neil. 

> On 19 Nov 2016, at 16:58, Marco Marzetti <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Robert,
> 
> This is a wonderful easy to use solution to send informational
> messages to your neighbor for a very specific case (sesssion shutdown)
> It is so easy that i wonder why we're discussing for so lo long.
> 
> Changing operational patterns or having well-formatted messages is out
> of the scope and don't relate to the draft.
> What i mean is you can't say the proposal is not good just because
> stupid people do stupid things in other circumstances (like sending
> maintenance alerts)
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Leave alone that this all makes sense to be sent well before the planned
>> admin shutdown so the other side is first aware of it and can manually or
>> automatically take users off that peering.
>> 
>> But looks like we are light years away from such basic thing here ....
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Neil J. McRae <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> We shouldn't be encouraging folks to build networks that for routine
>>> events we then require more manual intervention when it's unwarranted.
>>> 
>>> Why does it need to be free format?
>>> 
>>> How many reasons or signals does one need to send in a message like this?
>>> Just thinking whilst I wait for the till to be rebooted in WHSmiths -  I can
>>> think of 3 different cease reasons (and 1 of them is a form of the other).
>>> De-peer; maintenance;  problem call/contact us - what else ? Enough to
>>> trigger info is in the existing config to trigger you to the right
>>> information on peeringdb or other local database.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Neil
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On 19 Nov 2016, at 14:48, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Robert Raszuk wrote:
>>>>> Just to be clear: I am also OK with free form text with the few well
>>>>> known and easy to machine parse keywords (in it).
>>>> 
>>>> the field should either be fully structured or free-form, and the
>>>> explicit intent of this draft is free form, utf8.  Having a half-way
>>>> house is in nobody's interest because the discussion will then rat-hole
>>>> on defining a new ad-hoc quasi-language, and the draft - if it ever gets
>>>> turned into running code - will end up being a protocol soup which
>>>> no-one will find satisying.
>>>> 
>>>> If you feel it should be fully structured, then please feel free to
>>>> submit an alternative draft to that effect.
>>>> 
>>>> Nick
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marco