nanog mailing list archives
Re: Dampening considered harmful? (Was: Re: verizon.net and other email grief)
From: Jerry Pasker <info () n-connect net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:51:42 -0600
An even more important consideration is whether our current paradigm of flap dampening actually is the behavior that we want to penalize.If a single link bounces just once, then thanks to our mesh, confederations, differing MRAI's etc., we can see many many changes to the AS path, resulting in dampening. Do we really want to inflict pain over such an incident?Tony
Of course not. Dampening should be set on a router according to that router's views. The more chances a router can see a single event multiplied, the more lax dampening should be on that router.
I think Rob Thomas's saying of "know your network" really applies here.In my book, the threat of dampening to anyone not playing nice is the true value of route dampening. Automatic enforcement of etiquette.
-Jerry .
Current thread:
- Re: Dampening considered harmful? (Was: Re: verizon.net and other email grief) Jerry Pasker (Dec 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Dampening considered harmful? (Was: Re: verizon.net and other email grief) Jerry Pasker (Dec 21)
- Re: Dampening considered harmful? (Was: Re: verizon.net and other email grief) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Dec 21)