Yes, in the paper I mentioned (where we observe a sustained level of
duplicates up to 40% in some monitors), this is the pattern we refer to
Withdrawl
Advertise
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)
http://simula.no/research/nd/publications/Simula.nd.435
Amund
On 20. mars 2010 00:51, Tony Li wrote:
Hi Geoff,
I'm not sure I understand this Tony. What is in my mind when I read this is
a counter case when a BGP speaker sees from a peer:
advertise
withdrawal
advertise a dup of the previous advertisement
withdrawal
advertise a dup
etc
i.e. in this case the dups are not irrelevant, and in this case caching of
previous
validation outcomes would be beneficial.
This is a different case than what I think we were discussing. At least if
I understand the situation, Lixia and crew were seeing:
Withdrawl
Advertise
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)
Advertise (dup)
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
