[39169] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Jun 27 13:39:23 2001
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:38:28 -0400
From: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010627133828.K27658@buddha.home.automagic.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0106271547400.7139-100000@www.everquick.net>; from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:24:45PM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 04:24:45PM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> > Date: 26 Jun 2001 19:23:42 -0700
> > From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
>
> [ heavy snipping throughout ]
>
> > I agree, you must have both sides (conservative send, and liberal
> > receive).
> >
> > Sending bad data is not acceptable. Cisco should not send bad data.
>
> I think that everyone agrees here... the question is, what penalty to
> apply and with what scope when some router spews bad data?
How about if there was a tool you could run against a BGP speaker
which sent a series of deliberately pathological and bogus updates,
and logged the behaviour of the box under test?
I haven't heard anybody say that vendor X, Y or Z are refusing to
fix bugs when they are pointed out to them (quite the contrary).
The trick would seem to be to report the bugs before they are found
in the wild.
What BGP acceptance tests do people currently run against prospective
vendors' hardware?
Joe
