Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23

  • From: Brett Frankenberger
  • Date: Sun Jun 24 17:56:59 2001

> Out of curiosity - did anyone see a duration of significanlt instability
> in the global routing tables on Saturday afternoon? Without violating NDA,
> all I can say is that it resembled a historic event involve a bad route,
> Ciscos, and Bay routers (only this time, it was a bad route, Ciscos, and
> <X> vendor whom I cannot name but is being soundly beaten with wet noodles
> to resolve the issue). The bad route, and instability, were seen across
> all of our transit vendors (all "household" names of transit service).

Hmm ... why is <X> being beaten?  Was the problem reversed this time?

The only historic event I can recall involving a bad route, Cisco, and
Bay (actually, events would be better, since it happened at least
twice) was a case of (a) someone injecting a bad route, (b) the cisco
at the other end accepting it in violation of the RFC, (c) ciscos
passing that bad route all around the internet, all in violation of the
RFC, (d) that route eventually hitting a cisco<->bay peering
connection, and (e) the Bay (although the problem wasn't limited to
Bay, as gated, and possible other implementations as well, behaved the
same way) properly sending a NOTIFY and taking down the BGP session, as
required by the RFC.

It only took two major outages before Cisco fixed the problem.  (The
BGP advertisement was posted to NANOG both times, as was the BugID the
second time.)  

So if this is the same issue, Cisco would be the vendor to flog,
although assuming they didn't re-introduce it, the flogging might more
correctly be directed at providers still running code old enough to
have this particular problem.

Both my transits (Bay on my end, Cisco on the other end) made it
through just fine, though.  (This time.  The last two times it
happened, the cisco's on the other end happily passed the invalid route
to me and the Bay on my end happily dropped the BGP session, and this
was repeated ad infinitum until the bogus route was removed from the
other end.)

     -- Brett

Discussion Communities

About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home

Merit Network, Inc.