Did your BGP crash today?

Jared Mauch jared at puck.nether.net
Fri Aug 27 14:19:28 CDT 2010


On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:29:15PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> 
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
> 
> Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up 
> against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that 
> they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session because of 
> a single malformed attribute? Did I miss the memo about the meeting? 
> I'll bring the punch and pie.

I think it's actually an implementation problem where it got out-of-sync.

You can't exactly blame the IETF for a vendor having poor code quality.

(at least not in this case IMHO).

I seem to recall there was something like this in the past that caused
some significant problems with people also running XR/CRS-1.  They quickly
got a fix and cisco issued a PSIRT as a result:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/products_security_advisory09186a0080af150f.shtml#summary

I would hope these people updated their software for that impact as well.

Without knowing what the defect impact was on those devices, and without talking to
PSIRT today, I don't know if an advisory is pending.  Perhaps it's a new defect
and the bug is going to be triggered again soon for those that don't patch
their devices.

- jared



More information about the NANOG mailing list