Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
At 03:01 AM 1/15/97 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see that we have it installed?
I think that the engineering special build number would probably be more relevant. ;-) As Ravi is out of cyberspace for a while (everyone congratulate him when he gets back!), Paul, could you please do the honors?
CSCdi75464, integrated in 11.1(7)CA and 11.1(7.3) mainline. This is an optimization, not a bug fix, although I'm sure skeptics would subjectively argue otherwise. - paul
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 08:02:59 -0500 Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com> wrote:
CSCdi75464, integrated in 11.1(7)CA and 11.1(7.3) mainline.
This is an optimization, not a bug fix, although I'm sure skeptics would subjectively argue otherwise.
How can you claim that this isn't a bug? Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
CSCdi75464, integrated in 11.1(7)CA and 11.1(7.3) mainline.
This is an optimization, not a bug fix, although I'm sure skeptics would subjectively argue otherwise.
How can you claim that this isn't a bug?
if you think it's a bug, then a fix is available if you think it's an optimization, then the new code is available why are we still talking about this? /jws
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:39:15 EST "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@metro.isi.edu> wrote:
if you think it's a bug, then a fix is available
And more people are likely to upgrade if it is phrased as a bugfix.
if you think it's an optimization, then the new code is available
This will make people think that it isn't anything to worry about.
why are we still talking about this?
Because its still happening? Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
so talk to your provider about deploying it, don't bash cisco who has already rolled new images and on the point of providers, do you really think they would continue to run code that causes them problems (whether cisco calls it a "bug" or an "optimization")? if providers thought it was a bug, then they would have anxiously awaited an announcement for an image that had the fix so that they could deploy it a bit of common sense is needed here, as i've tried to point out, but people seem to prefer to create problems where there are none /jws
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:39:15 EST "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@metro.isi.edu> wrote:
if you think it's a bug, then a fix is available
And more people are likely to upgrade if it is phrased as a bugfix.
if you think it's an optimization, then the new code is available
This will make people think that it isn't anything to worry about.
why are we still talking about this?
Because its still happening?
Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:58:50 EST "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@metro.isi.edu> wrote:
so talk to your provider about deploying it, don't bash cisco who has already rolled new images
sigh.
and on the point of providers, do you really think they would continue to run code that causes them problems (whether cisco calls it a "bug" or an "optimization")? if providers thought it was a bug, then they would have anxiously awaited an announcement for an image that had the fix so that they could deploy it
You'd be amazed. Doing a router upgrade isn't a simple quick 5 second thing to do. That has to be planned, and if people see it as bugfix they are more likely to upgrade. I used to keep 1 weeks worth of BGP4 logs for all of my employers peers, now I can't keep 1 hours because of all the _crap_ I recieve from their routers. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
100,000 routes/day to the RA even though we've had a 'deny .*' filter-list towards
No, people (like me) are likely to upgrade so that we don't show up as withdrawing them for many months (since we don't peer with anyone currently through the RA at MAE-East). Whether it's a bugfix or an optimization, it hasn't been bothering my routers CPU-wise - and I suspect it hasn't bothered their oomphy rsd boxes. But I'd like to think that most people who peer with the RSs follow these issues and know to upgrade whether it's called a bugfix or not. Avi
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:39:15 EST "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@metro.isi.edu> wrote:
if you think it's a bug, then a fix is available
And more people are likely to upgrade if it is phrased as a bugfix.
if you think it's an optimization, then the new code is available
This will make people think that it isn't anything to worry about.
why are we still talking about this?
Because its still happening?
Neil.
CSCdi75464, integrated in 11.1(7)CA and 11.1(7.3) mainline.
This is an optimization, not a bug fix, although I'm sure skeptics would subjectively argue otherwise.
How can you claim that this isn't a bug?
Because the protocol spec doesn't say you can't, or even shouldn't, propagate a withdrawal to a neighbor you havn't advertised something to. Conforming BGP receiver implementations issue no warnings and do not behave badly in the presence of extra withdrawals. The total BGP byte count due to extra withdrawals was never very high. The total CPU ticks used to ignore them was never very high. Extra withdrawals was something somebody noticed because they were looking for something else. It was amusing, not alarming. Cisco fixed it because people (like me) thought it was sloppy and just would not shut up about it. Tempest. Teapot. Have none of you got anything more important to discuss?
Paul A Vixie writes...
[...]
Extra withdrawals was something somebody noticed because they were looking for something else. It was amusing, not alarming. Cisco fixed it because people (like me) thought it was sloppy and just would not shut up about it.
Tempest. Teapot. Have none of you got anything more important to discuss?
Did anybody else listen to that CNet Radio bit from the EE Times article's author? At the end of it, the host said something like, "So, the REAL problem isn't so much with Cisco routers, but with Cisco's router users." -- Matt Ranney - mjr@ranney.com This is how I sign all my messages.
Matt Ranney <mjr@wacky.eit.com> quoted E.E.Times
"So, the REAL problem isn't so much with Cisco routers, but with Cisco's router users."
... I've discovered this odd problem with Cisco router users who propogate unwanted emails about BGP withdrawals. Whilst they claim there is no harm in doing so, and its not against any group charters, spewing this random information out is real *annoying*. Any chance someone could fix these users so they don't keep spewing out this crap so I can keep my NANOG logs clean please. :-) Alex Bligh Xara Networks
If people insist on continuing to discuss this (not that I encourage it :-), cisco-nsp@cic.net might be more appropriate (yeah, I know Bill, it's critical to the ongoing operations of the Internet and therefore deserves discussion on the nanog list and the public has a right to know blah blah). dave At 11:31 -0800 1/15/97, Alex.Bligh wrote:
Matt Ranney <mjr@wacky.eit.com> quoted E.E.Times
"So, the REAL problem isn't so much with Cisco routers, but with Cisco's router users."
... I've discovered this odd problem with Cisco router users who propogate unwanted emails about BGP withdrawals. Whilst they claim there is no harm in doing so, and its not against any group charters, spewing this random information out is real *annoying*. Any chance someone could fix these users so they don't keep spewing out this crap so I can keep my NANOG logs clean please. :-)
Alex Bligh Xara Networks
It's amazing to read all you. CISCO is not bug free, espesually in the modes their authors newer think about (16 ASYNC lines loaded by local ISP at 40Kbit every, with BGP and FAIR QUEUERING, for example; no doubt everybody can foung his own examples). But I can't found anybody who have said what's real problem caused by this _withdrawaling_.
Matt Ranney <mjr@wacky.eit.com> quoted E.E.Times
"So, the REAL problem isn't so much with Cisco routers, but with Cisco's router users."
... I've discovered this odd problem with Cisco router users who propogate unwanted emails about BGP withdrawals. Whilst they claim there is no harm in doing so, and its not against any group charters, spewing this random information out is real *annoying*. Any chance someone could fix these users so they don't keep spewing out this crap so I can keep my NANOG logs clean please. :-)
Alex Bligh Xara Networks
--- Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
participants (9)
-
Alex.Bligh -
alex＠relcom.EU.net -
Avi Freedman -
dave o'leary -
John W. Stewart III -
Matt Ranney -
Neil J. McRae -
Paul A Vixie -
Paul Ferguson