Re: [Idr] Warren Kumari's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-gr-notification-15: (with DISCUSS)

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

> On May 22, 2018, at 3:35 PM, Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ​Hi Jeff,​
>  
> This is a point where I point at your supposed opeational background and suggest shame on you. :-)
> 
> 
> ​I think ​it should be pointed out that there is difference between sound operational reasons and simply bad network design. 
> 
> If someone would deploy in a network route reflectors (and in fact also routers) from multiple vendors (let's be brave and say 3 or 4) probability that all implementations would go down on given trigger is highly reduced - perhaps to the extend that no outage would occur and no one would propose to make BGP state persistent ;-). 
> 
> Here my only worry is that we are stretching protocol(s) to cover for wrong choices of network architecture. 

Since it seems my attempt at humor was overly broad (I believe Warren is likely to have taken it with its original intent), this is more a jab at the focus on a knob that is not usually a good idea usually being something that ends up in code mostly at the pressure of the operators/customers.  We call such features "rope (to hang yourself with)" for good cause.  Warren is thus pointing out the thing that as a customer he may have asked for in the first place. :-)

While I generally sympathize with your approach to network heterogeneity as a mechanism for achieving better fault tolerance, I also consider it optimistic.

-- Jeff