nanog mailing list archives
Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:15:55 -0400
Or do the sensible thing and just drop the announcement and log the problem.
Which is exactly what an RFC7606 compliant device will do for an unknown path attribute. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7606#page-5 o Treat-as-withdraw: In this approach, the UPDATE message containing the path attribute in question MUST be treated as though all contained routes had been withdrawn just as if they had been listed in the WITHDRAWN ROUTES field (or in the MP_UNREACH_NLRI attribute if appropriate) of the UPDATE message, thus causing them to be removed from the Adj-RIB-In according to the procedures of [RFC4271 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4271>]. d. If any of the well-known mandatory attributes are not present in an UPDATE message, then "treat-as-withdraw" MUST be used. (Note that [RFC4760] reclassifies NEXT_HOP as what is effectively discretionary.) e. "Treat-as-withdraw" MUST be used for the cases that specify a session reset and involve any of the attributes ORIGIN, AS_PATH, NEXT_HOP, MULTI_EXIT_DISC, or LOCAL_PREF. On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:01 AM Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen () imacandi net> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:04 PM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:50 AM Mike Lyon <mike.lyon () gmail com> wrote:Ran across this article today and haven't seen posts about it so i figured I would share:https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/bgp-path-attributes-grave-error-handling Can you imagine, as the origin of a route, troubleshooting a connectivity issue in which Internet BGP routers far from your control have trouble with attributes attached by their peers and then "did their best" with your route instead of dropping the session and essentially demanding intervention by the network operator? Dumping the session may seem extreme, but there's a good reason for it.Or do the sensible thing and just drop the announcement and log the problem. This might be a problem in a DFZ environment, but albeit a small one. Or, drop the invalid attribute and treat the announcement as a regular one.
Current thread:
- JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Mike Lyon (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Mark Prosser (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Jeff Tantsura (Aug 31)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue William Herrin (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Eugeniu Patrascu (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Tom Beecher (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Eugeniu Patrascu (Aug 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue jeffm (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Tom Beecher (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Steve Noble (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue jeffm (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Aug 30)
- Re: JunOS/FRR/Nokia et al BGP critical issue Mark Prosser (Aug 30)
