[c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

[Ang Kah Yik]

Hi,

Thanks for sharing your opinion on the disabling of damping as a BCP.
Yes, this is something that we've taken into consideration.

However, route flap damping is still in use in a number of networks out there.
Thus, we would like to obtain feedback on how the damping of a flap by
a transit provider may affect our connectivity.

Thanks once again for your opinion.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Pelle <perc69 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I don't have an answer to your question, but a thought about dampening.
>
>> In theory, it's supposed to work, but thought it might be better to
>> ask for advice and things to watch out for before deploying in the
>> real world.
>
> BGP dampening is no longer regarded as "a good thing", but something
> to turn off. In fact the Cisco BCP is to disable dampening.
>
> Here are some arguments against dampening:
>
> * Today's routers' performance can easily cope with route flaps.
> * RFD implementations may differ in RFD parameter values. This
> inconsistency may result in inconsistent path selection.
> * Modality of route advertisement may differ. Some implementations
> pass on the update without waiting at all, others wait for 30 seconds,
> etc. This will likely result in a different best-path offering to
> neighbors as message updates arrive.
>
> --
> Pelle
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>



-- 
Ang Kah Yik (bangky) - http://blog.bangky.net