Re: Did your BGP crash today?

[Leen Besselink <leen () consolejunkie net>]

On 08/28/2010 01:52 PM, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> My point was not about crafted bgp message to test border cases - this is what one would expect in a regression suite.
> It is about the use of a fuzzer to corrupt packet when you then do not know if the router is then behaving correctly 
> or not.
>
>   

I wasn't saying you should use both at the same time, but I thought it
might be a good idea to add a fuzzer so
that it could be run seperately. Any bugs we can find before it is in
production causing problems is useful.

Although most code I've seen which deals with the BGP-protocol directly
seemed to be pretty simple/smart about it.

> ---
> from my iPhone
>
> On 28 Aug 2010, at 13:36, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:
>
>   
> > On (2010-08-28 13:23 +0200), Thomas Mangin wrote:
> >
> >     
> > > Those tools are not suitable for regression testing ( I know I wrote exabgp ) not saying they could not be adapted 
> > > though.
> > >
> > > Fizzing may return crashes or issues with the daemon but it is unlikely. You need predictable input for regression 
> > > testing and in our particular case how do you detect a corruption without knowing what the behaviour of the router 
> > > should be on that particular input.
> > >       
> > It doesn't actually matter how likely or unlikely one expect such tool to
> > be finding new issues. There is already value, that researchers like RIPE
> > in this case, could simply write new test case, instead of needing to build
> > whole infrastructure.
> >
> > -- 
> >  ++ytti
> >
> >     
>
>