Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
skh at nexthop.com
Sat Jan 19 02:39:10 UTC 2002
What else causes repeative peer bounces other than the broken prefix?
PS - I'm away from work from now until Monday morning..
At 05:42 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Vijay Gill wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Dave Israel wrote:
> > It's a question of robustness; if the new spec includes a way to be
> > tolerant of how the spec is (or can be) commonly abused, then the
> > followers of the spec will not be at the mercy of those who deviate.
> > In this case, I think that having the option to keep a session that
> > gives bad routes up, and just dropping the route, is a good answer.
> > That would allow the user to determine which is preferable for a given
> > peer: possible corruption or certain disconnection.
>If you have a "bad route" how do you know the rest of the update is good?
>The nlri may have gotten corrupted on the wire or between the interface
>and the processor (parity error, or some sort of corruption on the bus).
>Given that case, in an update, I am not sure you can make a determination
>of what is good nlri and selectively propogate and process those. See also
>meltdowns circa nov 1998.
More information about the NANOG