[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GROW] dampening
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
grow-bounces at ietf.org wrote on 11/11/2009 02:14:03 AM:
> From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho at mesh.ad.jp>
> To: grow at ietf.org
> Cc: jared at puck.nether.net
> Date: 11/11/2009 02:14 AM
> Subject: [GROW] dampening
> Sent by: grow-bounces at ietf.org
>
> -----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
> GROW at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow