[c-nsp] suppress bgp updates?

[Mark Kent]

Following up to my own message...

It turns out that if you feed Google the important words from this paragraph:

   Back when this was a hot topic I am pretty sure someone like Vadim
   Antonov complained about not caring when a T1 circuit flaps inside
   some clueless ISP.  And I am certain that there was an implication
   that if only those clueless ISPs would configure their routers
   correctly then the world would be spared from their stupidity.

then you get this thread:

  http://seclists.org/nanog/1995/Jan/57

which has interesting points at a few places:

  http://seclists.org/nanog/1995/Jan/50

 -- Routing flaps considered harmful
        [or, how to kill half the Internet with one rapidly-
        oscillating circuit]
        (many routers are having problems CPU-wise processing
        the number of route-flaps seen these days.  BGP to
        single-homed internets exacerbates this; so does 
        any type of unnecessary dynamic routing.  On Ciscos,
        leaving seriously-flapping links up and running when
        they can affect worldwide NLRI is bad news.
        Aggregation helps.)
 
  http://seclists.org/nanog/1995/Jan/52

  http://seclists.org/nanog/1995/Jan/55

     Another thing we really need from router manufacturers is
     _persistent_ static routes by default.  The current behaviour
     of one rather popular brand of routers (name witheld to protect
     the guilty) is to remove routes if the associated circuit goes
     down.  We need to change it to have packets to go to the bit
     bucket instead, and make the old behaviour be configurable
     with an explicit knob.

Are we _still_ looking for a way to show a persistently static face
to BGP peers?

Thanks,
-mark