[129129] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did your BGP crash today?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeroen Massar)
Fri Aug 27 15:18:14 2010
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:17:40 +0200
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100827191324.GJ1946@gerbil.cluepon.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010-08-27 21:13, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:29:15PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>> Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
>
> Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up
> against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that
> they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session because of
> a single malformed attribute? Did I miss the memo about the meeting?
> I'll bring the punch and pie.
Complain to your vendor, especially C & J are having good enough
influence on the IETF to make such a change possible.
I can agree with tearing the session down when one encounters an
improperly formatted message, but an unknown attribute, while the rest
of the format of message is fine, is a silly thing to hang up on indeed.
Greets,
Jeroen
