Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
Christopher A. Woodfield
rekoil at semihuman.com
Sat Jan 19 19:39:48 UTC 2002
IMO, bad negototiation messages are a bit more indicitave of a
malfunctioning router that a bad prefix is, as it's unquestioningly
something that was originated by the router in question, where a bad
prefix could easily have originated elsewhere. Receipt of a malformed
negotiation message should definitely be grounds for terminating the BGP
Whether or not a BGP peer shuts down the peering session upon receipt of a
bad prefix, it should definitely refuse to propagate the invalid data. The
fact that Brand "C" routers propagated the bad prefix was the primary
cause of what happened in October.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 06:46:42PM -0800, Jake Khuon wrote:
> ### On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:39:10 -0500, Susan Hares <skh at nexthop.com>
> ### casually decided to expound upon Vijay Gill <vijay at umbc.edu> the
> ### following thoughts about "Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you
> ### care? ":
> SH> What else causes repeative peer bounces other than the broken prefix?
> Well... I remember when bad capability negotiation messages would cause the
> session to drop. Although this is before any update messages were sent.
> However it still caused repeating session bouncing.
> /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon at NEEBU.Net> ]======================+
> | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
> | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil at semihuman.com
PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
More information about the NANOG