RE: BGP Exploit

["Smith, Donald" <Donald.Smith () qwest com>]

I don't believe it FILLED the pipe. I suspect it made the interface
unusable by consuming buffer/processes/io ...
Other interfaces on the system were still functional. I did NOT measure
the actual through put.


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 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On 
> Behalf Of Christopher L. Morrow
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 5:31 PM
> To: Patrick W.Gilmore
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: BGP Exploit
>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 May 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Smith, Donald wrote:
> >
> > > 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.