max-prefix and platform tcam limits: they are things

David Miller dmiller at tiggee.com
Sat Oct 6 00:38:30 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 10/5/2012 8:17 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:05:07 -0300, jim deleskie said:
> 
>> But here goes, 210x the size of normal really?  210% I'd have a
>> hard time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route leak
>> equal to larger then the entire Internet that day, anywhere else
>> that could of caused this?
> 
> If the device was only expecting 2K or so internal routes, getting
> hit with the 440K routes in the DFZ would be 210x....
> 

On outages GoDaddy provided a tiny bit more information.

[quote]
Obviously the explanation of the incident had to be consumed by the
general public, however we encountered an unknown bug that was found
which started the domino effect. Aside from this group, that level of
detail wouldn't be understood by a majority of the recipients.

With that said, please feel free to take this off list with Jason or
Myself.

Mike Dob
Manager, Network Engineering
[/quote]

No information has been provided on what sort of "unknown bug" this
was.  A bug in code that GoDaddy wrote?  A bug in their route servers
or router OS, which others may also use and might want to be aware of?

- -DMM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQb32GAAoJECp6zT7OFmGa5wYIAIWp9vUwS/5zM73cAXlUrpwR
5U3XuUn3fasq8JyuNFhe99aDhkQY+i5tQEFhhhB60dVfWcyVGYsO1Ny0FMXupYfE
Ely29vxutWHMDxX39XTvmmtNkeSsZ2cOtkqF14If+43/CccrDwDDiC06YoSyxb/x
JEjWMhcthcw8rbndzF3P+bRCerdyxPpeQLzNy+l0/SbjobsLwzDA28CPW2kL82Bh
67dgqdXiMVFARC8rc91bYAoJ+NtkLs/GwYSbgXdNCk5dGrZvOk1rVWzaKxBrNV8T
rldU43GRzeq2bJAKo0fx17/HE4j9qlfeBIW+bihwgkMpzw8p3kRS9S0WU4cGxGM=
=1nls
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the NANOG mailing list