4 ms·
Very interesting and easy to understand overview, thanks. I'm not familiar with this side of networking, but it sounds to me the "BGP Optimiser" product was le
by djhworld 7y ago
Very interesting and easy to understand overview, thanks.
I'm not familiar with this side of networking, but it sounds to me the "BGP Optimiser" product was left largely to its own devices and automated a configuration change without any explicit approval from a human operator (I could be wrong)
With the protocol being prone to problems like leaky routes and sloppy peers accepting them, is it really wise to leave these BGP optimiser products running without some level of supervision?
EDIT: of course I guess the human operator might wave the change through too without fully appreciating the problem...
- kazen44 7y agothe issue is that, as stated by the article. Things like this could be prevented by doing proper IRR filtering.
- linsomniac 7y agoI think the reality of it is that these BGP optimizers really can't be human checked. There's just too much it is doing, and for them to be really beneficial they need to respond quickly to network path congestion. I would be surprised if overseeing such a system could be done with fewer than 6 full time people, as a WAG. ... Which is why you should be really sure that these optimized routes never leak! And on top of it, Verizon should never have accepted those announcements.