Ah ok now I understand Will's email, didn't spot this reply :-) and your hypothesis seems very reasonable.
-- Neil J. McRae. [email protected] ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Daniel Austin [[email protected]] Sent: 06 October 2012 07:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [uknof] Go daddy what happened Hi, On 06/10/2012 05:29, Neil J. McRae wrote: > but even if they didn't have RR how do they get into a situation where a > router starts switching in software. RR is a red herring in this failure > scenario even with full mesh this failure would still have happened. > > root cause is somewhere a wad of routes turned a lot of silicon into > something useless. > > does anyone know what kit this was? I had a theory that they were using switches to route with a limited table, and accidentally pushed a full table to them. When they say "210x normal routes"... if they normally had around 2000 routes in the FIB, 210x this would be approx a full table. If they limited the route reflectors with a max-prefix setting, they could end up in a situation where their routers become islands. These are the sorts of mistakes i'd expect from a new, unexperienced ISP - not someone the size of godaddy. Thanks, Dan.
