Thanks Seiichi, I googled around myself as well, and found http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-43/presentations/ripe43-routing-flap.pdf as well as the original sigomm paper.
The objections with RFP have almost entirely to do with inter-domain effects. The "damping" of a flapping VP-route is of course entirely intra-domain, so earlier objections with RFP don't apply here. Perhaps I should have chosen a different term than RFP in the talk. I took it for granted that people would see that it is a different situation (RFP is meant to deal with frequently flapping remote links, I was merely suggesting that a vendor implementing VA might need to take into consideration the load that would occur if for some unfortunate reason an ARP was flapping). Next time I'll call it "FIB churn prevention" :) PF [email protected] wrote on 11/11/2009 02:14:03 AM: > From: Seiichi Kawamura <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: 11/11/2009 02:14 AM > Subject: [GROW] dampening > Sent by: [email protected] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378.html > > I think this is what Jared was referring to. > > Seiichi > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkr6D9sACgkQcrhTYfxyMkIS1gCgh5wRJdJbo4FLRebS5dHVjVoc > Bz0An3x9x5BHs/ONey+HMxvjewq3KSTF > =CLVe > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
