nanog mailing list archives
Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP
From: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 10:46:18 -0400
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.
Again, as it was stated, the size of or number of BGP communities wasn't the problem anyway; it was hashing / memory storage. And you know what? Hashing / memory storage HAS been a problem with multiple vendors in many other contexts, not just BGP community stuff. Has nothing to do with "2023 hardware". You can bog down top of the line DDR5 memory pretty easily if you make certain coding choices. You can choose ( as you apparently have ) to just presume that a problem that happened before won't ever happen again. Prob not a great idea though. On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 11:48 PM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
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.
Current thread:
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP, (continued)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Matthew Petach (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Robert Raszuk (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Matthew Petach (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Tom Beecher (Aug 21)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 21)
- Message not available
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Tom Beecher (Aug 22)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 22)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Jon Lewis via NANOG (Aug 19)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 18)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP michael brooks - ESC (Aug 30)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Mark Tinka (Aug 30)
- Re: Destination Preference Attribute for BGP Robert Raszuk (Aug 31)