[39032] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Mon Jun 25 17:47:51 2001
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 17:46:49 -0400
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.Nether.net>
To: lucifer@lightbearer.com
Cc: Brett@lightbearer.com, Frankenberger <rbf@rbfnet.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010625174649.E5085@puck.nether.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20010625213832.3179.qmail@prophecy.lightbearer.com>; from lucifer@lightbearer.com on Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:38:32PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 02:38:32PM -0700, lucifer@lightbearer.com wrote:
> Can anyone verify whether Cisco still does BGP this way? (Propagate, then
> kill origionating session). If so, it rather clearly answers the question
> about how this managed to make it throughout the network...
I'm fairly sure that is not the case anymore.
> (For the record: I'm not trying to Cisco-bash here. All vendors have
> problems, and when you have a huge market share, your problems tend to
> show up much more obviously, when they appear. However, Cisco does still
> have a huge market share, meaning this affected a whole lot of people,
> if true... so, I'm curious).
From what I can tell this time it was not ciscos fault. It
appears that the vendor that had the problem just had an issue with
a specific "valid" announcement that others propogated to it.
What is interesting is one could use this to see what
providers are using vendor "X" at exchange points.
- Jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
