On 8/27/10 1:07 PM, Mike Gatti wrote: > where's the change management process in all of this. > basically now we are going to starting changing things that can > potentially have an adverse affect on users without letting anyone know > before hand .... Interesting concept.
BGP is transitive, change management is not. you have a change management process, your peer might integrate into that but have their own, your peer's peers almost certainly do not. Every time a wet-behind-the-ears network engineer connects a bgp speaker to the edge of the network it's an experiment in the the stability of the Internet. This on the fact of it seems like a quite reasonable experiment, which should have worked, except that it happened to tickle a bug... > On Aug 27, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Dave Israel wrote: > >> >> On 8/27/2010 3:22 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: >>> When you are processing something, it's sometimes hard to tell if something >>> just was mis-parsed (as I think the case is here with the "missing-2-bytes") >>> vs just getting garbage. Perhaps there should be some way to "re-sync" when >>> you are having this problem, or a parallel "keepalive" path similar to >>> MACA/MCAS/MIDCAS/TCAS between the devices to talk when something bad is >>> happening. >> >> I know it wasn't there originally, and isn't mandatory now, but there is >> an MD5 hash that can be added to the packet. If the TCP hash checks >> out, then you know the packet wasn't garbled, and just contained >> information you didn't grok. That seems like enough evidence to be able >> to shrug and toss the packet without dropping the session. >> >> -Dave >> >> >> > > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= > Mike Gatti > ekim.it...@gmail.com > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= > > > > >
