tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post6101538018325017147..comments2024-03-28T09:19:27.451+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Two steps forward, one step backRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-62570593663904552862012-02-07T13:17:11.881+00:002012-02-07T13:17:11.881+00:00I know, I know... We have several really subtle th...I know, I know... We have several really subtle things to change on the code first, including stuff to handle non standard BGP.<br /><br />But I can take a hint re OSPF, honest.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-82939296697097215222012-02-07T13:11:10.687+00:002012-02-07T13:11:10.687+00:00+1 for Firebrick OSPF please!+1 for Firebrick OSPF please!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-80210302449020407872012-02-03T14:02:53.385+00:002012-02-03T14:02:53.385+00:00A BGP update includes announced and withdrawn pref...A BGP update includes announced and withdrawn prefixes, though they are unrelated. In this case a /16 was withdrawn but that was not seen because of the bug (withdraw sent in same update as an announce that was to be ignored under route reflector rules), so the route stayed in the table. The route then came back but as a longer prefix. The result was a bogus route in the route reflectors that was shortest path causing traffic to loop rather than go where it should.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-87906525170854840662012-02-03T13:30:02.229+00:002012-02-03T13:30:02.229+00:00Can you explain what "withdraw prefixes"...Can you explain what "withdraw prefixes" are? Your concerns was about a /16 not being advertised, so how are withdraw prefixes related?Frank Bulkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02004215342995023858noreply@blogger.com