[112340] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Illegal header length in BGP error
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mills, Charles)
Tue Feb 24 10:56:34 2009
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:53:56 -0500
In-Reply-To: <49A416E8.2000508@rakotomalala.com>
From: "Mills, Charles" <cmills@accessdc.com>
To: "Renaud RAKOTOMALALA" <renaud@rakotomalala.com>,
"Matthew Huff" <mhuff@ox.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I ran into exactly the same thing during a code upgrade a few weeks ago.
I wrote it off as a bug in BGP and backed off the code until a new =
release was out. I was also running 12.4(22)T
On an NPE-G2.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Renaud RAKOTOMALALA [mailto:renaud@rakotomalala.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:49 AM
To: Matthew Huff; 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: Re: Illegal header length in BGP error
Hello Matthew,
We changed the motherboard from cisco one of our from 7206VXR (NPE-G1)=20
to 7206VXR (NPE-G2).
Due to incompability with the IOS 12.3(4r)T3 we upgraded this IOS to=20
12.4(12.2r)T. At the end we've got the same problem as you between one=20
of our 7200 in 12.3 and the new one in 12.4 ....
We solved the problem by upgrading the cisco withe the IOS from=20
12.4(12.2r) to 12.4(4)XD10 and the BGP session came back alive ....
So now everything work fine between our 7200 (IOS 12.3) and the other=20
7200 in IOS 12.4(4)XD10
I hope it could help you ...
Cheers,
Renaud
Matthew Huff a =E9crit :
> One of our upstream providers flapped this morning, and since then =
they are
> sending corrupted BPG data. I'm running 12.4(22)T on cisco 7200s. I'm
> getting no BGP errors from that providers and the number of routes and =
basic
> sanity check looks okay. However, when it tries to redistribute the =
bgp
> routes via iBGP to our other board routers, we get:
>
> 003372: Feb 24 09:17:13.963 EST: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor x.x.x.x =
Down BGP
> Notification sent
> 003373: Feb 24 09:17:13.963 EST: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor
> x.x.x.x 1/2 (illegal header length) 2 bytes =20
>
>
> All routes have identical hardware and IOS versions. My google and =
cisco
> search fu leads me to the AS path length bug, but the interesting =
thing is
> that since we have "bgp maxas-limit 75" configured and a recent IOS, =
we
> haven't had the problem before when other people were reporting =
issues. I've
> also looked at the path mtu issue, and although we haven't had a =
problem
> before I disabled bgp mtu path discovery, but have the same issues.
>
> Anyone seeing something like this today, and or does anyone have a
> suggestion on finding out more specific info (which as path for =
example so I
> can filter it)?
> =20
This e-mail message and any files transmitted with it contain =
confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this =
email message is addressed. If you have received this e-mail message in =
error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and =
destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you.
Neither this information block, the typed name of the sender, nor =
anything else in this message is intended to constitute an electronic =
signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in =
this message.
