No. The router stays up. The tool I use is very fast. It floods the GIGE
to the point that that interface is basically unusable but the router
itself stays up only the session is torn down. I did preformed these
tests in a lab and did
not have full bgp routing tables etc ... so your mileage may vary.
Donald.Smith@qwest.com GCIA
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xAF00EDCC
pgpFingerPrint:9CE4 227B B9B3 601F B500 D076 43F1 0767 AF00 EDCC
kill -13 111.2
That is DAMNED impressive. I've never seen a router which can take a Gigabit of traffic to its CPU and stay up. What kind of router was this? You mentioned Juniper and Cisco before, but I know a cisco will fall over long before a gigabit and a Juniper either does or drops packets destined for the CPU (but keeps routing).
Perhaps it was rate limiting the # of packets which reached the CPU, and the session stayed up because the "magic" packet was dropped in the rate limiting?
> No. The router stays up. The tool I use is very fast. It floods the
> GIGE
> to the point that that interface is basically unusable but the router
> itself stays up only the session is torn down. I did preformed these
> tests in a lab and did
> not have full bgp routing tables etc ... so your mileage may vary.That is DAMNED impressive. I've never seen a router which can take a
Gigabit of traffic to its CPU and stay up. What kind of router was
this? You mentioned Juniper and Cisco before, but I know a cisco will
fall over long before a gigabit and a Juniper either does or drops
packets destined for the CPU (but keeps routing).
recieve-path acl and recieve-path-limits perhaps on a cisco will allow
survival? Though if this is 'bgp' from a valid peer it seems likely to
crunch it either way.
Perhaps it was rate limiting the # of packets which reached the CPU,
and the session stayed up because the "magic" packet was dropped in the
rate limiting?
That sees likely.
No. The router stays up. The tool I use is very fast. It floods the
GIGE
to the point that that interface is basically unusable but the router
itself stays up only the session is torn down. I did preformed these
tests in a lab and did
not have full bgp routing tables etc ... so your mileage may vary.That is DAMNED impressive. I've never seen a router which can take a
Gigabit of traffic to its CPU and stay up. What kind of router was
this? You mentioned Juniper and Cisco before, but I know a cisco will
fall over long before a gigabit and a Juniper either does or drops
packets destined for the CPU (but keeps routing).recieve-path acl and recieve-path-limits perhaps on a cisco will allow
survival? Though if this is 'bgp' from a valid peer it seems likely to
crunch it either way.
Does this mean you think a cisco would survive a gigabit of traffic from a "valid" peer directed at the CPU? I admit I have not tested this, but past experience with similar things would imply _any_ router cisco makes would fall over in such a situation - at best just wedging and not doing anything (pass packets, SMNP, SSH, etc.), and perhaps rebooting, depending upon IOS / model.
Perhaps it was rate limiting the # of packets which reached the CPU,
and the session stayed up because the "magic" packet was dropped in the
rate limiting?That sees likely.
Agreed. Which makes the test ... not 100% valid.
Hrmmm.... I wonder how many miscreants tried the MD5 thing and just sent 100K pps to the router to reset a session really fast, then failed 'cause most of their packets were dropped?
>> That is DAMNED impressive. I've never seen a router which can take a
>> Gigabit of traffic to its CPU and stay up. What kind of router was
>> this? You mentioned Juniper and Cisco before, but I know a cisco will
>> fall over long before a gigabit and a Juniper either does or drops
>> packets destined for the CPU (but keeps routing).
>
> recieve-path acl and recieve-path-limits perhaps on a cisco will allow
> survival? Though if this is 'bgp' from a valid peer it seems likely to
> crunch it either way.Does this mean you think a cisco would survive a gigabit of traffic
from a "valid" peer directed at the CPU? I admit I have not tested
If you employed the recieve-path acls and limits sure... the linecard can
take a gig of traffic, right? 
The neighbor might not be happy since you
would likely rate-limit down peer traffic to some 'normal' level and thus
choke off the real peer and the session would drop in the end anyway. So,
same end effect, different method.
this, but past experience with similar things would imply _any_ router
cisco makes would fall over in such a situation - at best just wedging
and not doing anything (pass packets, SMNP, SSH, etc.), and perhaps
rebooting, depending upon IOS / model.
without the recieve-path stuff it surely will pain the router.
>> Perhaps it was rate limiting the # of packets which reached the CPU,
>> and the session stayed up because the "magic" packet was dropped in
>> the
>> rate limiting?
>>
>
> That sees likely.Agreed. Which makes the test ... not 100% valid.
correct.
Hi
it would be a much better idea to force cisco to fix their bgp-feature bug
(redistributing wrong as-paths and dropping after that the bgp-session)
before talking long and wide about the bgp/tcp "problem".
as far as i know, the last 2 big internet-blackouts could be tracked down
to wrong as-paths, which waved trough the inet, but i never saw a bgp/tcp
problem at the internet gobally.
Kind regards,
Flaschberger Ingo