Re: as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attributes?

[Enke Chen <[e-mail]>]

> Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:20:07 -0400
> From: Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: as4bytes - 4byte speaker receiving new* attributes?
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
> Sender: [e-mail]
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> In the current as4bytes draft (draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-02.txt):
> 
> :    The new attributes, NEW_AS_PATH and NEW_AGGREGATOR should not be
> :    carried in the updates between NEW BGP peers. A NEW BGP speaker that
> :    receives an UPDATE message from a NEW BGP speaker, with the
> :    NEW_AS_PATH attribute carried in the UPDATE message must ignore the
> :    attribute. The same applies to the NEW_AGGREGATOR attribute.
> 
> If we are a 4byte router peering with another 4byte router
> and have mutually capability advertised a 4byte peering session, we
> should not be getting these attributes.
> 
> Would it not be better to send a NOTIFY in this case?  

"NOTIFICATION" is the last resort and it is disruptive.

There is no need to send a notification in this case as the receiver can deal with
the message and function properly. It is consistent with the famous protocol
rule: "Be conservative with what you send, and be liberal with what you accept".

-- Enke