2 ms·
Like you I don't see how a change in protocol is requried, an update to the RFC to say something SHOULD time out the connection if the send window is zero. That
by iso1631 6y ago
Like you I don't see how a change in protocol is requried, an update to the RFC to say something SHOULD time out the connection if the send window is zero. That said I haven't read the specs with a toothcomb and perhaps there's something about how you MUST NOT drop the connection if you're getting keepalives?
Get Cisco and Juniper to implement it and that's 75% of LINX covered at least, I assume other exchanges have similar equipment makeup.
It seems reasonable behaviour to me.
It doesn't prevent the problem of the malicious BGP peer of course, but we know that already - if they choose to ignore your messages (while being happy with a high send-window) but continue to send keepalives you're equally screwed.
- iforgotpassword 6y agoIf you don't put it in the RFC then you'll end up with five different solutions to this problem from five different vendors, and a nice 5x5 matrix of new hilarious edge cases when these are talking to each other and something wonky is happening to the TCP session.