|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs
This is one of the reasons some folks opt to avoid the route servers (i.e., the data and control plane aren't congruent). -danny > NANOG members, > > I have a question to the group regarding how best to avoid blackholing > routes to peers on an ATM NAP when using route servers. > > There is a case wherein my peering partner and I both have active PVCs to > the route servers, but the PVC between my peering partner and my router is > down. Thus, we both see routes from the route server with each other's IP as > next-hop, but since our direct PVC is down that next-hop is no good. > > It'd like a way to automatically and efficiently detect loss of next-hop and > discard routes accordingly. Are folks generally using OAM keepalives, and if > so, any parameters for OAM interval time and dead/alive count that seem > practical? > > Thanks, > > -- > Reid Knuttila > Network Engineer > Onvoy
|