Re: Global BGP - 2001-06-23 - Vendor X's statement...

[Clayton Fiske <clay () bloomcounty org>]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 11:01:58AM -0700, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Tue, 26 June 2001, "Chance Whaley" wrote:
> > Vendor X released a limited statement to their customers describing the
> > issue - and their view on it. The large incumbent vendor that we all
> > know and love has confirmed the issue, and released a "patch" to some of
> > their customers. Vendor X also went on to state that at no time did
> > their boxes crash, mis-forward, reset, or have any issue resulting from
> > the events of the past weekend.
>
> Sigh, the motto "be liberal in what you accept and conservative in what
> you send" applies to BOTH parties.  The failure of one party not to
> liberally accept what is received does not excuse the sending party from
> being conservative in what they send.  And vice-versa.

No, but in this case, assuming it was as stated, the announcement in
question specifically should not have been accepted. Its rejection is
a mechanism intended to prevent the propagation of malformed routes.
The problem would have been contained at the source had the original
router receiving the announcement behaved properly and closed the
session without propagating it.

-c