Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability

Wed Apr 21 14:19:10 UTC 2004

On Apr 21, 2004, at 3:56 AM, Michel Py wrote:

>> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>> For pure: "Don't blow me up with prefixes" just limit the
>> maximum-prefix to some # over your expected peer's list.
>
> Please allow me to try to make my point again: you store the expected
> peer maximum-prefix somewhere in your management system. I do 
> understand
> the added complexity, but in the big scheme of things would it be 
> _that_
> more difficult to store a comma-delimited string or something that
> contains the prefixes that could be announced by that peer instead of
> the maximum-prefix?

Yes.

> Yes, it generates more work to update the database,
> but OTOH it provides the LIII engineer with a lot more to troubleshoot
> issues. Is it simply not worth the work at your scale?

Exactly.

And you do not have to be at 701's scale for this to not work.

Process is a bitch.  Especially when it involves other people over whom 
you no control.

And when that process involves customers calling to ask why they can't 
get to XXX web site (no pun intended - I'm sure no one would filter a 
pr0n site :), it is much more than "a bitch", it is a CLM/CEM.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick