top posting: it's my fault for not stating clearly -- Since Amund's
msg said that
- Surprisingly, as much as 40% of churn consists of duplicate
announcements, which are unnecessary for correct protocol operation.
I was merely offering one explanation for the cause of the observed
On Mar 15, 2010, at 4:30 AM, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote:
In einer eMail vom 15.03.2010 08:00:10 Westeuropäische Normalzeit
schreibt li...@cs.ucla.edu:
Heiner,
1/ I am not quite clear why collecting topological links is the #1
question for RRG/routing scalability solution development
2/
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Tony Li wrote:
employer hat off
Any operator who would like to stand up and embarrass their favorite router
vendor by showing a graph of router boot convergence times is welcome to do
so. ;-)
/employer hat off
Ok, I'll jump on my soap box. In worst case, Juniper high-end
In einer eMail vom 16.03.2010 08:34:27 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
li...@cs.ucla.edu:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 4:30 AM, _heinerhum...@aol.com_
(mailto:heinerhum...@aol.com) wrote:
In einer eMail vom 15.03.2010 08:00:10 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
_li...@cs.ucla.edu_
Toni, you are raising an interesting issue. However, if the sending routers
do not check whether an update is duplicate, and if the receiving
routers do not check whether an update is duplicate, don't we create
a positive feedback loop? I mean, if a router X sends a duplicate
update to N other
