Hi, Thanks for sharing your opinion on the disabling of damping as a BCP. Yes, this is something that we've taken into consideration.
However, route flap damping is still in use in a number of networks out there. Thus, we would like to obtain feedback on how the damping of a flap by a transit provider may affect our connectivity. Thanks once again for your opinion. On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Pelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > > I don't have an answer to your question, but a thought about dampening. > >> In theory, it's supposed to work, but thought it might be better to >> ask for advice and things to watch out for before deploying in the >> real world. > > BGP dampening is no longer regarded as "a good thing", but something > to turn off. In fact the Cisco BCP is to disable dampening. > > Here are some arguments against dampening: > > * Today's routers' performance can easily cope with route flaps. > * RFD implementations may differ in RFD parameter values. This > inconsistency may result in inconsistent path selection. > * Modality of route advertisement may differ. Some implementations > pass on the update without waiting at all, others wait for 30 seconds, > etc. This will likely result in a different best-path offering to > neighbors as message updates arrive. > > -- > Pelle > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > -- Ang Kah Yik (bangky) - http://blog.bangky.net _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
