Subject: [Idr] ADVISORY != SOFT_NOTIFY

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:23:07 -0400

ADVISORY != SOFT_NOTIFY

SOFT_NOTIFY would replace NOTIFICATION in soft circumstances and drop
a prefix rather than a session.  SOFT_NOTIFY applied to AS_CONFED_SEQ
in AS4_PATH, *could* solve the problem in
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg14345.html , while
ADVISORY would only provide additional hints.

Am I mistaken?  

Curtis

---

From: Richard A Steenbergen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 16:26:13 -0500

> ADVISORY would only provide additional hints.

There was a proposal to integrated ADVISORY into SOFT_NOTIFY, where the
advisory message would be a free-form text type along with many other
fixed-form types. I don't think you would want to restrict SOFT_NOTIFY
to handling bad attributes/prefixes only, but that would clearly be one
type of message you would send.

The only advantage I could see in the integration (vs two separate
drafts) would be if you did multi-part SOFT_NOTIFY messages, with both a
fixed-form and free-form text message in response to the same event. I'm
not sure this is a big winner or worth all the trouble however. The
disadvantage I see is that ADVISORY "sticky" messages (similar to a
SONET path trace for the BGP session) don't map into SOFT_NOTIFY space
at all. Based on that, I would say they shouldn't be integrated.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <[email-masked]>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)