On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mike Gatti <ekim.it...@gmail.com> 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.
you are running bgp, you are connected to the 'internet'... congrats you are part of the experiment. I suppose one view is that "at least it wasn't someone with ill intent, or a misconfigured mikrotek!" (you are asking your vendors to run full bit sweeps of each protocol in a regimented manner checking for all possible edge cases and properly handling them, right?) -chris > 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 > =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= > > > > >