On 8/21/23 17:44, Tom Beecher wrote:
So, while this all sounds good, without any specifics on vendor,
box, code, code revision number, fix, year it happened, current
status, e.t.c., I can't offer any meaningful engagement.
If you clicked Matt's link to the Google search, you could tell from
the results what vendor , model, and year it was pretty quickly.
I did.
Those are headlines.
The solider that was on the battlefield won't speak to the exact details.
I won't press, especially because nobody that needed a T1600 back then
probably still runs one today.
Assertion Made : "Networks can scrub communities for memory or
convergence reasons."
Others : "That doesn't seem like a concern. "
Matt : "Here was a real situation that happened where it was a
concern, and the specifics on the reason why."
How is that not 'moving the needle? Because you didn't get full
transcripts of his conversation with the vendor?. I'm sure a lot of
people didn't even know that hashing / memory hotspotting was even a
thing. Now they do.
There are a lot of things that vendors have fixed in BGP that we shall
never know.
What I am saying is that for those that have been fixed, unless someone
can offer up any additional evidence in 2023, the size of the number of
BGP communities attached to a path does not scream "danger" in 2023
hardware. And the T1600 is a looooong time ago.
Mark.
