On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:11:02 PM Peter Rathlev wrote: > We actually started using minimal ISIS timers instead of > BFD generally when BFD for SVIs became unavailable after > SXF. We have since started using BFD again but haven't > thought about raising the ISIS timers again. I'll > definitely make sure to take a look at correcting this.
Traditionally, "aggressive" IGP timers in conjunction with BFD have been such that convergence happens as soon as BFD signals its client (the IGP, in this case) of an issue on the link. If BFD is fast but the IGP is still waiting around to run its SPF process, the benefits of BFD become marginalized. Then again, with (r)LFA, perhaps the case for BFD is slowly going away. It's something I'm seriously thinking about. (r)LFA has its constraints, but on face value, it seems redundant to have both (r)LFA and BFD enabled. > We saw some amount of BFD false positives with int > 100/mul 3 though, possible (probably even) because of > the same CPU overload. Which is why it's int 200/mul 4 > now, which works well for us. I've generally run BFD at 250ms/3s within the PoP, and 250ms/5s between PoP's. It's a real trade-off between speed and stability. Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
