North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Persistent BGP peer flapping - do you care?
### On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:00:06 -0500, "Christopher A. Woodfield" ### <[email protected]> casually decided to expound upon Susan Hares ### <[email protected]> the following thoughts about "Re: Persistent BGP peer ### flapping - do you care?": CAW> I agree with your holddown timer proposal in cases of the peer being dropped due to CAW> errors, as the resultant loops can result in extreme prefix dampening. But my CAW> assertation is that BGP peering sessions should be a bit more robust and not drop CAW> everything at the first sign of trouble. Well, as I recall, the original intent to drop the entire session and thereby flush that peer from the table is because an invalid advertisement may be symptomatic of a larger scale table corruption on the part of the peer thus all advertisements should be invalidated. Dropping the peer and thereby initiating a coldstart/reset was the conservative solution. I think some form of peer damping with an exponential decay timer much like route flap damping would be a good thing. Simply reject the OPEN until the decay timer has expired. As for propogation of the bad prefix... well that soapbox has worn paint on top. If people aren't going to bother following specs in the first place I'm not sure a new spec will solve anything. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <[email protected]> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/