On (2013-07-08 12:25 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580 > That's the ongoing work.
I think it was bit early of RIPE to make new recommendation pretty much immediately as the RFC came out. Rationale was 'no one objected in the list'. I guess by that logic, it would be pretty easy to have obscure recommendations by choosing matters people don't know about or don't care about. I frankly would not suggest dampening even based on this new RFC. I think what would be useful, would be to penalize via policy flapping routes 'set term damp from damped then local-pref 50' instead of the implied 'then reject' I don't feel I'm in the position to make the decision for my customer when they should be able to receive unstable route and when not. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
