Did your BGP crash today?
Jared Mauch
jared at puck.nether.net
Fri Aug 27 19:19:28 UTC 2010
On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:29:15PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>
> Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up
> against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that
> they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session because of
> a single malformed attribute? Did I miss the memo about the meeting?
> I'll bring the punch and pie.
I think it's actually an implementation problem where it got out-of-sync.
You can't exactly blame the IETF for a vendor having poor code quality.
(at least not in this case IMHO).
I seem to recall there was something like this in the past that caused
some significant problems with people also running XR/CRS-1. They quickly
got a fix and cisco issued a PSIRT as a result:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080af150f.shtml#summary
I would hope these people updated their software for that impact as well.
Without knowing what the defect impact was on those devices, and without talking to
PSIRT today, I don't know if an advisory is pending. Perhaps it's a new defect
and the bug is going to be triggered again soon for those that don't patch
their devices.
- jared
More information about the NANOG
mailing list