|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2
Yeah, that's essentially what cisco said, though I'd guess that you ought to be able to at least not propagate the withdraw back to the peer who sent it to you... But that's just my opinion. Steve R./Merit == >From [email protected] Fri Jun 21 11:26:41 1996 >Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by home.merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id LAA03178; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:26:39 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (from [email protected]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id LAA16611 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:52 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from chops.icp.net (chops.icp.net [199.0.55.71]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id LAA16603 for <[email protected]>; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:31 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by chops.icp.net id <20689>; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:23 +0100 >From: Sean Doran <[email protected]> >To: [email protected], [email protected] >Subject: Re: Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2 >Message-Id: <[email protected]> >Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:18 +0100 >Sender: [email protected] >Precedence: bulk >Status: R > >Keeping track of the state of who got announced what is likely >to be a very very very bad idea for busy BGP talkers carrying >today's amount of NLRI and instability. > >There are some hacks around the simplistic "if it's in my RIB, >I have to propagate withdrawals to all my neighbours" for some >cases, but a more comprehensive fix would require some Thinking. > >This should probably get migrated over to the BGP list. > > Sean. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |