Do we agree that 10s is a far more reasonable value that 120s? donald
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Daniel Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Paul Jakma <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2015, Daniel Walton wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walton <[email protected]> >>> Reviewed-by: Donald Sharp <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> bgpd/bgpd.h | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/bgpd/bgpd.h b/bgpd/bgpd.h >>> index b57a62a..f9bee3c 100644 >>> --- a/bgpd/bgpd.h >>> +++ b/bgpd/bgpd.h >>> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct bgp_nlri >>> #define BGP_DEFAULT_EBGP_ROUTEADV 0 >>> #define BGP_DEFAULT_IBGP_ROUTEADV 0 >>> #define BGP_CLEAR_CONNECT_RETRY 20 >>> -#define BGP_DEFAULT_CONNECT_RETRY 120 >>> +#define BGP_DEFAULT_CONNECT_RETRY 10 >>> >> >> 10s? >> >> Why not lower again? 5s would be unlikely to cuase problems for most? 2s >> probably wouldn't hurt anyone either. >> > > The thought was that for iBGP peers it would be worth waiting long enough > for the IGP to converge before we make another attempts at establishing the > connection. 10s should be plenty of time for that...I don't have strong > feelings against making it lower though since we could probably set it to > 1s and I doubt anyone would ever notice in terms of CPU. > > Daniel > > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
