North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 05:42:53PM -0500, Vijay Gill wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Dave Israel wrote: > > > It's a question of robustness; if the new spec includes a way to be > > tolerant of how the spec is (or can be) commonly abused, then the > > followers of the spec will not be at the mercy of those who deviate. > > > > In this case, I think that having the option to keep a session that > > gives bad routes up, and just dropping the route, is a good answer. > > That would allow the user to determine which is preferable for a given > > peer: possible corruption or certain disconnection. > > If you have a "bad route" how do you know the rest of the update is good? > The nlri may have gotten corrupted on the wire or between the interface > and the processor (parity error, or some sort of corruption on the bus). > Given that case, in an update, I am not sure you can make a determination > of what is good nlri and selectively propogate and process those. See also > meltdowns circa nov 1998. There was another notion that never made it off the drawing board (not even into proposal) regarding "graceful error recovery", a way to assume that your peer's *entire* table wasn't suspect, just the malformed part, and notify the peer that there was a problem. Do this too many times, and you drop the session, still, of course. The not-even-a-formal-draft is still around somewhere. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [email protected] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
|