Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?

["Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil () semihuman com>]

IMO, bad negototiation messages are a bit more indicitave of a 
malfunctioning router that a bad prefix is, as it's unquestioningly 
something that was originated by the router in question, where a bad 
prefix could easily have originated elsewhere. Receipt of a malformed 
negotiation message should definitely be grounds for terminating the BGP 
session.

Whether or not a BGP peer shuts down the peering session upon receipt of a 
bad prefix, it should definitely refuse to propagate the invalid data. The 
fact that Brand "C" routers propagated the bad prefix was the primary 
cause of what happened in October.

-C

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 06:46:42PM -0800, Jake Khuon wrote:
> ### On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 21:39:10 -0500, Susan Hares <skh () nexthop com>
> ### casually decided to expound upon Vijay Gill <vijay () umbc edu> the
> ### following thoughts about "Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you
> ### care? ":
>
> SH> What else causes repeative peer bounces other than the broken prefix?
>
> Well... I remember when bad capability negotiation messages would cause the
> session to drop.  Although this is before any update messages were sent. 
> However it still caused repeating session bouncing.
>
>
> --
> /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon () NEEBU Net> ]======================+
>  | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers     /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- |
>  | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation  / |/  [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S |
>  +=========================================================================*/

-- 
---------------------------
Christopher A. Woodfield                rekoil () semihuman com

PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B