> > So, while this all sounds good, without any specifics on vendor, box, > code, code revision number, fix, year it happened, current status, e.t.c., > I can't offer any meaningful engagement. >
If you clicked Matt's link to the Google search, you could tell from the results what vendor , model, and year it was pretty quickly. > It's just not moving the needle on this thread, though. > Assertion Made : "Networks can scrub communities for memory or convergence reasons." Others : "That doesn't seem like a concern. " Matt : "Here was a real situation that happened where it was a concern, and the specifics on the reason why." How is that not 'moving the needle? Because you didn't get full transcripts of his conversation with the vendor?. I'm sure a lot of people didn't even know that hashing / memory hotspotting was even a thing. Now they do. On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 1:17 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > > > On 8/19/23 00:22, Matthew Petach wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > I know it's annoying that I won't mention specifics. > Unfortunately, the last time I mentioned $vendor-specific information on > NANOG, it was picked up by the press, and turned into a multimillion dollar > kerfuffle with me at the center of the cross-hairs: > > https://www.google.com/search?q=petach+kablooie&sca_esv=558180114&nirf=petah+kablooie&filter=0&biw=1580&bih=1008&dpr=2 > > After that, I've learned it's best to not name specific very-big-name > vendors on NANOG posts. > > What I *can* say is that this was one of the primary vendors in the > Internet backbone space, running mainstream code. > The only reason it didn't affect more networks was a function of the > particular cluster of signalling communities being applied to all inbound > prefixes, and how they interacted with the vendor's hash algorithm. > > Corner cases, while valid, do not speak to the majority. If this was a >> major issue, there would have been more noise about it by now. >> > > I prefer to look at it the other way; the reason you didn't hear more > noise about it, is that we stubbed our toes on it early, and had relatively > fast, direct access to the development engineers to get it fixed within two > days. It's precisely *bcause* people trip over corner cases and get them > fixed that they don't end up causing more widespread pain across the rest > of the Internet. > > >> There has been quite some noise about lengthy AS_PATH updates that bring >> some routers down, which has usually been fixed with improved BGP code. But >> even those are not too common, if one considers a 365-day period. >> > > Oh, absolutely. Bugs in implementations that either crash the router or > reset the BGP session are much more immediately visible than "that's odd, > it's taking my routers longer to converge than it should". > > How many networks actually track their convergence time in a time series > database, and look at unusual trends, and then diagnose why the convergence > time is increasing, versus how many networks just note an increasing number > of "hey, your network seems to be slowing down" and throw more hardware at > the problem, while grumbling about why their big expensive routers seem to > be less powerful than a *nix box running gated? > > I suspect there's more of these type of "corner cases" out there than you > recognize. > It's just that most networks don't dig into routing performance issues > unless it actually breaks the router, or kills BGP adjacencies. > > If you *are* one of the few networks that tracks your router's convergence > time over time, and identifies and resolves unexpected increases in > convergence time, then yes, you absolutely have standing to tell me to pipe > down and go back into my corner again. ;D > > > So, while this all sounds good, without any specifics on vendor, box, > code, code revision number, fix, year it happened, current status, e.t.c., > I can't offer any meaningful engagement. > > We all run into odd stuff as we operate this Internet, but the point of a > list like this is to share those details so we can learn, fix and move > forward. > > Your ambiguity does not lend itself to a helpful discussion, > notwithstanding my understanding of your caution. > > I am less concerned about keeping smiles on vendors' faces. I tell them in > public and private if they are great or not. But since you've been burned, > I get. It's just not moving the needle on this thread, though. > > Mark. >
