[43016] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Which had more impact on the net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Thu Sep 27 22:27:21 2001
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:41:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
To: cowie@renesys.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200109280203.WAA04546@renesys.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.40.0109272236070.27288-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 cowie@renesys.com wrote:
> http://www.renesys.com/projects/bgp_instability
>
> These pages contain some unsettling analysis of the effects
> of Microsoft worms like Code Red II and Nimda on global BGP
> routing instability. They've been significantly extended
> since last week, and we *strongly* invite the NANOG community
> to send us supporting data (or even anecdotes, let's be
> generous) from the propagation periods.
I read over it quickly, a lot of great data.
One thing you may want to consider is the difference multi-hop
BGP has in your data collection. For several years, router
vendors give priority to locally sourced routing packets on
local interfaces. But on multi-hop sessions, I believe that
prioritization is lost which may show up as more instability
than is actually present at the local BGP exchanges.
