Re: [Idr] Comparison between session-reset and treat-as-withdraw

Jie,

In terms of recovery, it has been shown that the session reset and 
reestablishment usually do not eliminate malformed updates.  Instead the 
session would often get into the cycle of reset and reestablishment 
until the culprit route is removed from the routing system by the 
operator manually.

-- Enke

On 9/13/12 10:21 PM, Jie Dong wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Since the bgp-error-handling draft proposes to replace session-reset 
> with treat-as-withdraw in some error cases, here I'd like to briefly 
> compare these two mechanisms.
>
> Basically, we could take session-reset as error-handling mechanism at 
> session level, while treat-as-withdraw is error-handling at route level.
>
> Impacts:
>
> Session-reset impacts all the routes exchanged over the session, while 
> treat-as-withdraw impacts only the routes carried in the malformed Update.
>
> Recovery:
>
> With session-reset, BGP speaker could recover the routes by 
> re-establishing the session, possibly with some back-off mechanism; 
> while currently treat-as-withdraw does not have corresponding recovery 
> mechanism at route level.
>
> Diagnosing:
>
> With session-reset, the error codes/subcodes in Notification can be 
> used for diagnosing; with treat-as-withdraw, the error could be 
> locally logged, but Notification will not be sent. The mechanisms 
> defined in operational-message draft may be used to provide diagnosing 
> info.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> Idr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr