Re: BGP Traffic Flood

2011-03-24 Thread Ondrej Zajicek
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:53:44AM +, Nick wrote: > > It would be a good idea to enable debug messages 'debug all > > { routes }' to know if there is the same flood inside BIRD or just > > on the output of BGP. > > >>> pipe_dn42_routes < replaced 172.22.55.0/24 via 172.22.104.40 on > >>> dn42

Re: BGP Traffic Flood

2011-03-23 Thread Nick
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 04:08:11PM +0100, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 01:45:22AM +, Nick wrote: > > When I downgrade to 1.2.5 the flood doesn't come back. > > I am not sure how interpret this sentence. In 1.2.5, there > was a flood or not? In 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 there was no f

Re: BGP Traffic Flood

2011-03-20 Thread Ondrej Zajicek
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 01:45:22AM +, Nick wrote: > When I downgrade to 1.2.5 the flood doesn't come back. I am not sure how interpret this sentence. In 1.2.5, there was a flood or not? Which routes are exported to the BGP? Static routes or from another BGP? It would be a good idea to enable

Re: BGP Traffic Flood

2011-03-10 Thread Nick
When I downgrade to 1.2.5 the flood doesn't come back. I ran git commit e7b4948cbd3e4cacf4fe0f774b44d1f74029ea6d before. BTW, welterde runs the same commit, and doesn't get the same flood. Maybe I will look in the git log tomorrow. On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:28:55AM +, Nick wrote: > I upgra

BGP Traffic Flood

2011-03-10 Thread Nick
I upgraded a node from 1.2.3 to git, and now my node makes a flood of outgoing BGP traffic. The traffic consists in messages that repeat the same updates for a few routes. Here is one example (from tcpdump). Update Message (2), length: 63 Origin (1), length: 1, Flags [T]: IGP