RFC 1771, further thoughts

Sean Donelan wrote:

> In an attempt to return to an argument, rather than simple contradiction
> (ok, ok, it's far more polite and reasonable so far than that would imply,
> but I couldn't miss the cheap shot; apologies hereby tendered), perhaps we
> should consider *what* the RFC should say, if it should be changed? Going
> to the WG with a proposal in hand and a rationale to support it would seem
> to be the best path.

One problem which makes the current practice worse in practice is the
cycling of the BGP session. Once you decide a BGP peer is "insane" why
start a fresh BGP session with the same peer, only to have them send the
same "bad" information again, and again, and again, and again.

If folks want to isolate misbehaving peers, do an ADMIN SHUTDOWN on the

I suppose this would certainly be a reasonable SHOULD clause for the "hit
the threshold" action. So, perhaps the action when hitting this should
read something like "MUST send a NOTIFY and drop the session, and SHOULD
admin-down the session and notify an operator" (for whatever value that
would actually translate to in RFC-ese, please pardon my liberties).