Re: [Idr] RFC-4893 handling malformed AS4_PATH attributes

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 03:08:14PM -0500, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Right, I think that was what Cayle also described and anyway was what I 
> meant to agree with.

I had interpreted Cayle perhaps a bit too pedantically (apropos) in that
I thought it was a matter of keeping the reachability around as
ineligible rather than discarding it as toxic.

In any case, I think we largely agree.

> (I think this is kind of a restatement of your earlier point which 
> generally pertained to slippery slopes and grot.)

Exactly.  This is the kind of thing that if you're going to have these
sorts of responses, keeping internal records of discarded vs. repaired
might be important for internal tie-breaking: I.e. prefer the routes
that are less broken.

>> I suspect if the WG put our collective heads together we'd probably
>> arrive at some consensus on having more survivable sessions.  It'd
>> probably result in a re-spin of the previous INFORM specification,
>> perhaps renaming the attribute WTF.
>
> You have just volunteered to craft an appropriate TLA back-formation. :-)

This seems good wisdom for all route-by-rumor protocols.  I might put
together a 1 April RFC candidate for Weaponized Transitive Foolishness.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr