IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15

Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net> Thu, 08 November 2001 03:48 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 WAA07269 for <idr-archive@nic.merit.edu>; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:48:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix) id AFB65912C9; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:48:34 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr-outgoing@trapdoor.merit.edu
Received: by trapdoor.merit.edu (Postfix, from userid 56) id 81328912CB; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:48:34 -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 30550912C9 for <idr@trapdoor.merit.edu>; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:48:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) id 06D895DDA4; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:48:33 -0500 (EST)
Delivered-To: idr@merit.edu
Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B575DD96 for <idr@merit.edu>; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 22:48:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fA83mD051359; Wed, 7 Nov 2001 19:48:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from yakov@juniper.net)
Message-Id: <200111080348.fA83mD051359@merlot.juniper.net>
To: Susan Hares <skh@nexthop.com>
Cc: idr@merit.edu
Subject: Re: FSM changes for the Draft-15
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:33:54 EST." <5.0.0.25.0.20011107162314.01d39868@mail.nexthop.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <26520.1005191293.1@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 19:48:13 -0800
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Sender: owner-idr@merit.edu
Precedence: bulk

Sue,

> At the last IDR meeting in London, John Scudder proposed that
> we cut the State machine. I objected to this removal since "no state machine"
> means interoperability problems between BGP implementations.
> If router vendor A  changes their implementation (or puts a bug) in the state
> machine there is no "standard" to hold them to.
> 
> I would like to first ask the working group if they want to remove the
> state machine or take fixes to the State machine.  I really think we
> should take fixes so we do not have interoperability issues.

I would especially encourage folks who are * BGP implementors* to comment
on whether they feel they really need the state machine in the spec.

Yakov.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email