[129172] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did your BGP crash today?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Mangin)
Sat Aug 28 07:25:01 2010
In-Reply-To: <4C78EE7B.6090309@consolejunkie.net>
From: Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin@exa-networks.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:23:50 +0200
To: Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Those tools are not suitable for regression testing ( I know I wrote exabgp )=
not saying they could not be adapted though.
Fizzing may return crashes or issues with the daemon but it is unlikely. You=
need predictable input for regression testing and in our particular case ho=
w do you detect a corruption without knowing what the behaviour of the route=
r should be on that particular input.
If it was that simple vendors would have done it
---
from my iPhone
On 28 Aug 2010, at 13:09, Leen Besselink <leen@consolejunkie.net> wrote:
> On 08/28/2010 11:39 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>> On (2010-08-28 18:20 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> a bgp regression suite would not have caught this as it was not a
>>> repeat. but it sure would be useful to implementors.
>>>=20
>> Naturally 'proving' that non-trivial software works is practically
>> impossible. But stating what non-existing test-suite would or would not
>> have covered is not a topic I'm particularly interested to engage.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> I suggest the test-tool has 2 bgp-sessions and tests if what it put in
> did or did not come out on the otherside and in what shape or form.
>=20
> There are already atleast 2 projects which have BGP-code which could
> probably be adapted:
> http://code.google.com/p/exabgp/
> http://code.google.com/p/bgpsimple/
>=20
> Can I suggest a fuzzer as wel ?
>=20
>=20
