OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Alex Zinin (azininCISCO.COM)
Date: Tue Mar 27 2001 - 00:51:24 CST

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    Avi:

     As Curtis already explained, OSPF data is NOT preserved, but
     recollected from the neighbors. That's why we go through the
     LSDB resync process.

    Alex.

    > Some people would rather have any effort available expended towards
    > good software (or a real OS, if that crutch is needed). I can see
    > bringing back BGP quickly, but the disasters possible with crunched
    > OSPF data are soooo much worse. 80k routes causing cyclic crashing
    > and propagation, anyone?

    > Avi

    >>
    >> alex:
    >>
    >> I hope it is clear by now that nobody is trying to solve OSPF
    >> bugs leading to crashes with additional mechanisms in the protocol.
    >>
    >> However, realistically speaking, SW will always have bugs, and
    >> the question is how one would like to react on a crash. If you
    >> want the process to remain down---no mechanisms are required.
    >> If some people want to try to bring it back up there definitely
    >> are people who want to do it without resetting the forwarding
    >> state.
    >>
    >> Alex.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> >> Or this way: would you not like your router to at least try to
    >> >> bring the process that has just crashed back up with (of course,
    >> >> with an oscillation prevention mechanism)?
    >>
    >> > How about starting by not having the process/router crash to begin with?
    >> > That would solve 99% of the problems that you are trying to address.
    >>
    >> >> > Case B is even more interesting. The software crashed. Ok, so now I'm
    >> >> > supposed to believe that crashing software can be fixed by adding MORE
    >> >> > software and protocol extentsions, even though the original software
    >> >> > didn't work well enough not to crash in the first place? Essentially my
    >> >> > take on this is: I couldn't write robust software, so let me make the
    >> >> > system more robust by adding more software!
    >> >>
    >> >> Following your logic here we would probably have to remove
    >> >> protected memory support from all CPUs and OSes and have all programmers
    >> >> fix all their bugs in all their programs... Oh, dear...
    >>
    >> > Page fault caused by de-referrencing a virtual address while running in a
    >> > state that can be pre-empted is very very very different from a page fault
    >> > caused by a process that does not pay attention to the heap boundaries...
    >>
    >>
    >> > Alex
    >>
    >>
    >>