nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Experiment
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:02:58 +0200
Hey,
After seeing this initial result I'm wondering why the researchers couldn't set up their own sandbox first before breaking code on the internet. I believe FRR is a free download and comes with GNU autoconf.
We probably should avoid anything which might demotivate future good guys from finding breaking bugs and reporting them, while sending perfectly standard-compliant messages. Only ones who will win are bad guys who collect libraries of how-to-break-internet. There are certainly several transit packet of deaths and BGP parser bugs in each implementation, I'd rather have good guy trigger them and give me details why my network broke, than have bad guy store them for future use. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: BGP Experiment, (continued)
- Re: BGP Experiment niels=nanog (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Tom Ammon (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment niels=nanog (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Jared Mauch (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Töma Gavrichenkov (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Steve Noble (Jan 08)
- Message not available
- RE: BGP Experiment adamv0025 (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Tom Ammon (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Stephen Satchell (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment niels=nanog (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Job Snijders (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment niels=nanog (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment niels=nanog (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Jared Mauch (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Owen DeLong (Jan 09)
- Re: BGP Experiment Eric Kuhnke (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Randy Bush (Jan 08)
- Re: BGP Experiment Job Snijders (Jan 08)