Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

wg-multicast - MSDP storm and its fallout

Subject: All things related to multicast

List archive

MSDP storm and its fallout


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Hugh LaMaster <>
  • To: Multicast WG Internet2 <>
  • Subject: MSDP storm and its fallout
  • Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:55:22 -0800 (PST)


We've mostly seen discussion on the technical aspects of this;
I'm wondering at this point about the layer-8 effects.
For example, I'm told that as of the end of the I2 meeting,
the Japanese research network (NACSIS?) and the Korean network
had turned off MBGP/MSDP peering completely, because the activity
was causing their unicast routing to fail (I don't have specifics).
I'm told they don't plan resume peering until the storms stop.

Several questions here.

How widespread were the Juniper problems? What version of
JunOS was running? (I think 4.2R2.4 is fairly current.)
Were the Juniper problems on boxes that had many MSDP peers?
What patches are desired? (e.g. the SA-limit stuff like Cisco has?)
What changes would restore everyone's comfort level?

With regard to Cisco routers, Cisco went through publicized
addition of a couple of features to ameliorate the problem.
Based on the SA monitors out there, it looks like many people
upgraded and put in SA-limits. How satisfied are people now
that these features will protect their networks?

Presumably, as the storms flare up from time to time, and
we bang up against various configured limits, some legitimate
SA's must not be getting announced all the way through. How
widespread is this now?

Is there any reason for people to remain unconnected today?

Long term, what is the solution here? A configurable limit on
the number of ISM groups and SSM (S,G)'s an interface can join?
My feeling is that this might be a good solution. If the default
was fairly low, 2000 groups and 10000 (S,G)'s say, it would cover
most campus situations, protect routers from both PIM and MSDP state,
and people who then needed larger limits could configure them in.
Ultimately, something (like this?) will be needed anyway, to protect
the local routers against similar activity originating on user LANs.


Comments?

--
Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-21, Email:

NASA Ames Research Center Or:

Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 Or:

Phone: 650/604-1056 Disc: Unofficial, personal *opinion*.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page