On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:41:42PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 05:02:19PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 06:22:09PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> > > This patch appears to be a very elegant solution to a thorny subtle
> > > problem: what to do when
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 05:02:19PM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 06:22:09PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> > This patch appears to be a very elegant solution to a thorny subtle
> > problem: what to do when a peer is not accepting new routing
> > information from you?
>
> One
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 06:22:09PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patch appears to be a very elegant solution to a thorny subtle
> problem: what to do when a peer is not accepting new routing information
> from you?
One thing I'm unsure about is the value of the SendHold timer. I
Hi all,
This patch appears to be a very elegant solution to a thorny subtle
problem: what to do when a peer is not accepting new routing information
from you?
I've seen in the wild that some crashed BGP implementations continue to
be able to generate KEEPALIVE messages, and are able to TCP ACK
The BGP protocol has a keepalive packet which resets the hold timer when a
packet is received. The problem is this covers only one side of the
transmission. It seems that some BGP implementations fail to process
messages in some cases but still send out KEEPALIVE packets. So bgpd
thinks everything
