[outages] Major Level3 (CenturyLink) Issues
saku at ytti.fi
Wed Sep 2 13:35:45 UTC 2020
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 at 16:16, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not buying it. No normal implementation of BGP stays online, replying to heart beat and accepting updates from ebgp peers, yet after 5 hours failed to process withdrawal from customers.
I can imagine writing BGP implementation like this
a) own queue for keepalives, which i always serve first fully
b) own queue for update, which i serve second
c) own queue for withdraw, which i serve last
Why I might think this makes sense, is perhaps I just received from
RR2 prefix I'm pulling from RR1, if I don't handle all my updates
first, I'm causing outage that should not happen, because I already
actually received the update telling I don't need to withdraw it.
Is this the right way to do it? Maybe not, but it's easy to imagine
why it might seem like a good idea.
How well BGP works in common cases and how it works in pathologically
scaled and busy cases are very different cases.
I know that even in stable states commonly run vendors on commonly run
hardware can take +2h to finish converging iBGP on initial turn-up.
More information about the NANOG