Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue

[Job Snijders via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2023 at 11:54:57AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> it's not really. If the receiving BGP stack understands the attribute,
> then it should be parsed as default, i.e. carefully.  Unfortunately,
> junos slipped up on this and didn't validate the input correctly,
> which is a parsing bug. Param validation bugs happen. They shouldn't
> happen, but they do.
>
> If an intermediate router doesn't understand a transitive attribute,
> it should be ignored, and life should move on.

+1 to what Nick stated.

Rob Shakir did a great job describing the various 'scopes' in which BGP
errors can appear and what that means for the 'blast radius'.

I recommend everyone to read section 3 of this draft document:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-ops-reqs-for-bgp-error-handling-07#section-3

Kind regards,

Job