Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode

[Russ White <[e-mail]>]

Something like: "BGP implementations can/should/must
(?) implement some method to prevent continuous flapping of
peering sessions at a high rate," and then a footbote explaining
that an exponential backoff is one such possible method?

Russ

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Eric Gray wrote:

> Russ,
> 
>     Very good point.  However, how would you represent "do some
> private magic here" in an FSM?  That may make it the dreaded ISM.
> Perhaps it might be sufficient to remove this from the FSM and
> add a footnote (possibly mentioning an exponential back-off as an
> example?).
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > Well, I just took it as 'do people do this?' I agree that it
> > won't cause interop problems either way--it's actually something
> > that's implementation local, so I'm not certain why the
> > exponential backoff would be in the fsm (?). There are, in other
> > words, other ways I could imagine handling this problem that
> > wouldn't effect interoperability as well....
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Russ
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Eric Gray wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________
> > > > [e-mail] <>< Grace Alone
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Gray (mailto:[e-mail])
> > > http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _____________________________
> > [e-mail] <>< Grace Alone
> 
> --
> Eric Gray (mailto:[e-mail])
> http://www.mindspring.com/~ewgray
> 
> 
> 

_____________________________
[e-mail] <>< Grace Alone