Did your BGP crash today?

Sun Aug 29 17:13:44 UTC 2010

On 8/27/10 1:07 PM, Mike Gatti wrote:
> where's the change management process in all of this. 
> basically now we are going to starting changing things that can 
> potentially have an adverse affect on users without letting anyone know
> before hand .... Interesting concept.

BGP is transitive, change management is not. you have a change
management process, your peer might integrate into that but have their
own, your peer's peers almost certainly do not.

Every time a wet-behind-the-ears network engineer connects a bgp speaker
to the edge of the network it's an experiment in the the stability of
the Internet.

This on the fact of it seems like a quite reasonable experiment, which
should have worked, except that it happened to tickle a bug...

> On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Dave Israel wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 8/27/2010 3:22 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>> When you are processing something, it's sometimes hard to tell if something
>>> just was mis-parsed (as I think the case is here with the "missing-2-bytes")
>>> vs just getting garbage.  Perhaps there should be some way to "re-sync" when
>>> you are having this problem, or a parallel "keepalive" path similar to
>>> MACA/MCAS/MIDCAS/TCAS between the devices to talk when something bad is
>>> happening.
>>
>> I know it wasn't there originally, and isn't mandatory now, but there is
>> an MD5 hash that can be added to the packet.  If the TCP hash checks
>> out, then you know the packet wasn't garbled, and just contained
>> information you didn't grok.  That seems like enough evidence to be able
>> to shrug and toss the packet without dropping the session.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>>
> 
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> Mike Gatti  
> ekim.ittag at gmail.com
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 