Did your BGP crash today?
cjeker at diehard.n-r-g.com
Mon Aug 30 07:51:52 UTC 2010
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> > It would seem to me that there should actually be a better option, e.g.
> > recognizing the malformed update, and simply discarding it (and sending the
> > originator an error message) instead of resetting the session.
> > Resetting of BGP sessions should only be done in the most dire of
> > circumstances, to avoid a widespread instability incident.
> I had the same thought before giving up on it.
> Negotiating a new error message could be a per peer option. BGP has
> capabilities for this exact reason.
> However to make sense you would need to find a resynchronisation point
> to only exclude the one faulty message. Initially I thought that the
> last received KEEPALIVE (for the receiver of the error message) could do
> - but you find yourselves with races conditions - so perhaps two
> KEEPALIVE back ?
Apart from one big vendor most BGP speaker only send KEEPALIVES when they
need to. So on my full feeds I see sessions running for more then 1 month
which received less then 300 KEEPALIVE packets.
More information about the NANOG