All things related to multicast

[Tom Pusateri <>]

One clarification:

The calculated length of the encapsulated data, based on the SA length
field, did not match the IP header length of the encapsulated data.

Thanks,
Tom

In message 
<>
 you write:
>We did have a problem reported with resets recently and we looked at the
>packet traces and determined invalid packets were being sent to us.
>
>The length in the SA including the encapsulated data did not match
>the length of data actually sent. In this case, there is no option
>but to tear down the session because it is no longer possible to
>determine the beginning of the next TLV.
>
>I made an argument long ago in IETF that using a TLV mechanism
>in a stream protocol like TCP was a bad idea for this very reason
>but got overruled...
>
>Thanks,
>Tom
>
>
>In message 
><>
> you write:
>>
>>Brent,
>>
>>I'm back on earth this week, so let me know if my help today would be more
>>than just an annouance.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>On Mon, 13 May 2002, Bill Owens wrote:
>>
>>> At 16:23 -0500 5/10/02, Brent Sweeny wrote:
>>> >folks, for the last several days we (Abilene) are seeing frequent--and
>>> >even weirder--simultaneous resets of msdp sessions on Abilene, and
>>> >can't quite figure out what's going wrong.  here are some data points,
>>> >and I'll ask some questions at the end.
>>>
>>> I will sheepishly admit to not having looked at the logs on our
>>> Junipers in some time, and just finding that the resets apparently
>>> started in Buffalo quite a while ago:
>>>
>>> Dec 30 04:26:49 buf-m20 rpd[573]: RPD_MSDP_PEER_DOWN: MSDP peer
>>> 199.109.2.2 peer-group Abilene-Buf out of Established
>>> Dec 30 04:27:36 buf-m20 rpd[573]: RPD_MSDP_PEER_DOWN: MSDP peer
>>> 199.109.2.2 peer-group Abilene-Buf out of Established
>>> Dec 30 04:53:47 buf-m20 rpd[573]: RPD_MSDP_PEER_DOWN: MSDP peer
>>> 199.109.2.2 peer-group Abilene-Buf out of Established
>>> Dec 30 04:57:41 buf-m20 last message repeated 2 times
>>> Dec 30 05:14:51 buf-m20 rpd[573]: RPD_MSDP_PEER_DOWN: MSDP peer
>>> 199.109.2.2 peer-group Abilene-Buf out of Established
>>>
>>> But they didn't start in NYC until recently:
>>>
>>> May  3 14:02:04 nyc-m20-0 rpd[587]: RPD_MSDP_PEER_DOWN: MSDP peer
>>> 199.109.5.2 peer-group Abilene-NYC out of Established
>>> May  3 14:02:40 nyc-m20-0 rpd[587]: RPD_MSDP_PEER_DOWN: MSDP peer
>>> 199.109.5.2 peer-group Abilene-NYC out of Established
>>> May  3 14:04:19 nyc-m20-0 last message repeated 5 times
>>> May  3 14:14:23 nyc-m20-0 last message repeated 28 times
>>> May  3 14:19:33 nyc-m20-0 last message repeated 6 times
>>>
>>> Our other Juniper, roc-m10, does not peer with Abilene and hasn't
>>> seen any resets on the MSDP peers within NYSERNet. Those peers
>>> include one GSR that had been on 12.0(15)S and jumped directly to
>>> 12.0(21)S1 a month or so ago. Our Junipers have progressed through
>>> the usual set of releases and are now on 5.2R2.3. If there's any
>>> debugging that we can do, just let me know. Watching things after
>>> CLEV goes to 12.0(21)S tonight will be a good test. . .
>>>
>>> Bill.
>>>
>>>
>>