Re: bgp4-17 Cease subcode

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

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