North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP Exploit
On May 5, 2004, at 7:31 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Does this mean you think a cisco would survive a gigabit of traffic from a "valid" peer directed at the CPU? I admit I have not tested this, but past experience with similar things would imply _any_ router cisco makes would fall over in such a situation - at best just wedging and not doing anything (pass packets, SMNP, SSH, etc.), and perhaps rebooting, depending upon IOS / model.On Wed, 5 May 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:On May 5, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Smith, Donald wrote:No. The router stays up. The tool I use is very fast. It floods the GIGE to the point that that interface is basically unusable but the router itself stays up only the session is torn down. I did preformed these tests in a lab and did not have full bgp routing tables etc ... so your mileage may vary.That is DAMNED impressive. I've never seen a router which can take a Gigabit of traffic to its CPU and stay up. What kind of router was this? You mentioned Juniper and Cisco before, but I know a cisco will fall over long before a gigabit and a Juniper either does or drops packets destined for the CPU (but keeps routing).recieve-path acl and recieve-path-limits perhaps on a cisco will allow survival? Though if this is 'bgp' from a valid peer it seems likely to crunch it either way. Agreed. Which makes the test ... not 100% valid.Perhaps it was rate limiting the # of packets which reached the CPU, Hrmmm.... I wonder how many miscreants tried the MD5 thing and just sent 100K pps to the router to reset a session really fast, then failed 'cause most of their packets were dropped? -- TTFN, patrick
|