Destination Preference Attribute for BGP

Tue Aug 22 03:51:23 UTC 2023

On 8/21/23 17:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
>     So, while this all sounds good, without any specifics on vendor,
>     box, code, code revision number, fix, year it happened, current
>     status, e.t.c., I can't offer any meaningful engagement.
>
>
> If you clicked Matt's link to the Google search, you could tell from 
> the results what vendor , model, and year it was pretty quickly.

I did.

Those are headlines.

The solider that was on the battlefield won't speak to the exact details.

I won't press, especially because nobody that needed a T1600 back then 
probably still runs one today.

> Assertion Made : "Networks can scrub communities for memory or 
> convergence reasons."
> Others : "That doesn't seem like a concern. "
> Matt : "Here was a real situation that happened where it was a 
> concern, and the specifics on the reason why."
>
> How is that not 'moving the needle? Because you didn't get full 
> transcripts of his conversation with the vendor?. I'm sure a lot of 
> people didn't even know that hashing / memory hotspotting was even a 
> thing. Now they do.

There are a lot of things that vendors have fixed in BGP that we shall 
never know.

What I am saying is that for those that have been fixed, unless someone 
can offer up any additional evidence in 2023, the size of the number of 
BGP communities attached to a path does not scream "danger" in 2023 
hardware. And the T1600 is a looooong time ago.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230822/3c138f41/attachment.html>