BGP noise tonight? (fwd)
Joel Baker
lucifer at lightbearer.com
Tue Oct 9 19:29:34 UTC 2001
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 12:27:55PM -0400, Christopher A. Woodfield wrote:
>
> As it turns out, both 2008 and 3300 are Infonet, US and Europe. So this
> was their foo.
>
> The problem is obviously that the RFC-proscribed behavior with bad
> prefixes works on paper, as it serves to isolate the network originating
> the problem prefix. However, that is totally dependent on /every/ router
> doing so, thus preventing the problem from spreading, which as we
> discovered, does not happen.
>
> The ideal alternative behavior is to drop the bad prefix--not dropping
> the peer, but not passing the bad prefix along either. I've been told that
> there are recent Cisco IOS revs that do this instead of passing it along,
> but they have other unresolved bugs that prevent their widespread use.
>
> Should someone think about possibly updating the RFC?
It's already written. However, the general impression a month and a half
ago was that it wasn't likely to go anywhere. Since I'm not really up to
trying to make headway in the relevant groups, anyone who *does* feel like
it and wants to see the proposal should feel welcome to contact me off-list
about it. It's really a fairly obvious set of extensions (and can, in fact,
be done with only extensions).
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer at lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
More information about the NANOG
mailing list