On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:57 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:43:39 PDT, Clay Fiske said: > >> If -everyone- dropped the session on a bad attribute, it likely wouldn't >> make it far enough into the wild to cause these problems in the first >> place. > > That works fine for malformed attributes. It blows chunks for legally formed > but unknown attributes - how would you ever deploy a new attribute?
By making it optional. Seems to me that's pretty well covered by the Path Attributes section of the RFC. A bad attribute isn't simply unknown, it's malformed. My apologies for not wording that more precisely. I do see the wisdom of fine-grained control of this behavior. I'm just saying, it'd be nice if we could have correct behavior on the basics in the first place. :) -c
