[129221] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did your BGP crash today?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Claudio Jeker)
Mon Aug 30 03:52:24 2010
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:51:52 +0200
From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@diehard.n-r-g.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4EC01755-8572-4AAD-9470-BDD4F6841A3F@exa-networks.co.uk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> > It would seem to me that there should actually be a better option, e.g.
> > recognizing the malformed update, and simply discarding it (and sending the
> > originator an error message) instead of resetting the session.
> >
> > Resetting of BGP sessions should only be done in the most dire of
> > circumstances, to avoid a widespread instability incident.
>
>
> I had the same thought before giving up on it.
>
> Negotiating a new error message could be a per peer option. BGP has
> capabilities for this exact reason.
>
> However to make sense you would need to find a resynchronisation point
> to only exclude the one faulty message. Initially I thought that the
> last received KEEPALIVE (for the receiver of the error message) could do
> - but you find yourselves with races conditions - so perhaps two
> KEEPALIVE back ?
Apart from one big vendor most BGP speaker only send KEEPALIVES when they
need to. So on my full feeds I see sessions running for more then 1 month
which received less then 300 KEEPALIVE packets.
--
:wq Claudio
