North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, John W. Stewart III wrote: > > excessive rates of bona fide routing updates *can* be a > problem. it's called route flap. and we've got route > flap dampening to reduce the scope of such events > > what we've been talking about very recently on this list > is the high rate of withdrawls that have been seen. > specifically, e.g., withdrawls from RouterA to RouterB > for networks that RouterA never announced to RouterB. > this is not a route flap .. it is just a superfluous > withdrawl and causes no operational problems. however, > some folks were tracking the number of withdrawls and > didn't like the large number, so the vendor was informed > and the code was changed. it's a good and appropriate > thing that the behavior was changed, but that doesn't > mean that it was a bug and doesn't mean that it was > causing any problems Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see that we have it installed? -Hank > > /jws > > > > > > 0) Is this a bug, does it cause any problem whatsoever? > > > > If I'm not mistaken, lots of routers have had performance problems > > caused by excessive rates of routing updates. > > > > Or didI misread various previous messages to this list? > > > > > > I've looked at the Cisco page, and a search on "BGP, withdrawals" does > > > > not find any mention of the bug fix release. So, I have some pointed > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|