nanog mailing list archives
RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability
From: "Peering" <Peering () xspedius com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:15:39 -0400
If you have a fully redundant internal BGP, and are running all 12.2S/12.3/12.2T, then you can rather safely do the internal BGP passwords without a customer notice, expecting no session drop but knowing if one did you'd have routes via a second BGP reflector anyway.
Just an FYI, when we changed sessions that had full routing tables on them at 2am CST with barely any traffic, it causes malloc failures on the Cisco 7513. So it's something I would reserve for a maintenance window if you have one.
Current thread:
- RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability, (continued)
- RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Apr 21)
- RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability David Luyer (Apr 21)
- Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 21)
- Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 21)
- Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Jared Mauch (Apr 21)
- Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Patrick W . Gilmore (Apr 21)
- Re: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Jared Mauch (Apr 21)
- RE: Winstar says there is no TCP/BGP vulnerability Michel Py (Apr 21)