[c-nsp] 3/11 (invalid or corrupt AS path)

[Rodney Dunn]

We are working on that. I'll let you know once I have more.

Rodney

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:41:34AM +0500, M Usman Ashraf wrote:
> Hi List,
> 
> We have just experience the same problem on SRC but with a different reason,
> 
> %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor X.X.X.X 3/11 (invalid or corrupt AS path)
> 518 bytes 50020202 02009531 23012306 71B9BAFC BA
> 
> 23w4d: BGP: X.X.X.X Bad attributes
> 
> Feb 16 21:26:04.918 pst: %BGP-4-MSGDUMP: unsupported or mal-formatted message
> received from X.X.X.X:
> FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF 022C 0200 0002 1140 0101 0050 0202 0202
> 0095 3123 0123 0671 B9BA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA
> FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA
> FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA
> FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA
> FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA
> FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA FCBA
> FCBA--
> 
> Any idea of reason? or what can be a bad message for BGP that can tear down
> adjacency ?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> M Usman Ashraf
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Rodney Dunn <rodunn at cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>     That would have to be *real* old code.
>    
>     That was fixed back in the 12.1(4)
>    
>     and 12.0(10)S3 days.
>    
>     On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 01:25:32PM -0500, Tim Donahue wrote:
>     > Joe Provo wrote:
>     > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 06:14:08PM +0100, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>     > >> Ozar wrote:
>     > >>> I am starting to see random BGP neighbor messages from multiple
>     neighbors
>     > >>> on
>     > >>> different boxes.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: received from neighbor X.X.X.X 3/11 (invalid or
>     > >>> corrupt
>     > >>> AS path) 516 bytes
>     > > [snip]
>     > >> No, it is not software error, it is extremly long as-path:
>     > >
>     > > The message itself, correct.  The flapping sessions observed on some
>     > > code, the long path is indeed triggering some bug. It is immaterial
>     > > if it is the revival of an ld bug or a new one, there are folks
>     > > flapping over this (and related) paths.  Providers without some level
>     > > of sanity filters (really need many-multiples the current diameter of
>     > > the net?) should be shamed into limiting their customer's prepends.
>     > >
>     >
>     > According to the NANOG thread on this, it would seem that the bug would
>     > be CSCdr54230.
>     >
>     > Tim
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>     > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>     > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>     _______________________________________________
>     cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>     https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>     archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>