IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode

Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com> Tue, 15 January 2002 15:00 UTC

Received: from trapdoor.merit.edu (postfix@trapdoor.merit.edu [198.108.1.26]) by nic.merit.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA24316 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id DAD8B91250; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:05 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 666C091251; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:05 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: from segue.merit.edu (segue.merit.edu [198.108.1.41]) by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB8B91250 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id A58215DD9F; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:02 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from sandmail.sandburst.com (sandmail.sandburst.com [216.57.132.42]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95EE5DD96 for <idr@merit.edu>; Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C4443F0.8DDC190C@sandburst.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 10:00:00 -0500
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ White <riw@cisco.com>, Inter-Domain Routing Mailing List <idr@merit.edu>
Subject: Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode
References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0201150747150.20636-100000@ruwhite-u10.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Russ,

    I don't think that NAKs are in order on this question - even from the
1500 pound dragon.  :-)

    The fact that anyone's implementation doesn't do X is important only
if not doing X causes interoperability problems with implementations
that do X.   That is not the case here, I believe...

You wrote:

> > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 09:28:53AM -0800, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> > > > Please remember that the goal of the draft is to document
> > > > what is *currently* implemented and deployed, *not* what
> > > > *could* be implemented and deployed.
> > >
> > > Is the expoential backoff in the FSM in current implementations?
> >
> > I guess we are going to find this out as part of the
> > implementation report. And if it is not in (at least two)
> > current implementations, we'll take it out of the text.
>
> Cisco doesn't do this....
>
> :-)
>
> Russ
>
> _____________________________
> riw@cisco.com <>< Grace Alone

--
Eric Gray (mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com)
http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email