No we can't say this is a legacy feature because ISPs still use this feature and only a few small ISP is disabled this because they dont't have a time to read RFC and RIPE documents or for other reasons ;)) . br, Atanas Yankov
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:32 +0800, Ang Kah Yik wrote: > Hi Ajeet, > Thank you for your reply. > Yes, we are multi-homed to our main upstream AS, as well another upstream > provider. > > I have taken a brief look at the paper you recommended but have not yet had > the time to digest the information in it. > > Meanwhile, can we assume (in general) that the conclusion to my original > post is that route flap damping is more of a "legacy feature" these days and > we can, to a larger extent, disregard it? > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Ajeet Bagga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 7, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Ang Kah Yik wrote: > > > > 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. > >> > > > > Are you multihomed to this transit? To other upstreams? Depending on the > > RFD implementation, withdrawal triggered suppression will indeed affect your > > connectivity. For analysis of arguments against RFD, specifically how it > > applies to your case, read the sigcomm presentation, < > > http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/routedampening.html>. > > White paper is available via the ACM portal, < > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=633047>. > > > > ~ > > Ajeet Bagga > > Sr. Network Engineer > > Cloud Computing Infrastructure and Services > > EMC > > > > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
