[c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

[xdsgrrr]

No we can't say this is a legacy feature because  ISPs still use this
feature and  only a few small ISP is disabled this because they dont't
have a time to read RFC and RIPE documents or for other reasons ;)) .
br,
Atanas Yankov

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 10:32 +0800, Ang Kah Yik wrote:
> Hi Ajeet,
> Thank you for your reply.
> Yes, we are multi-homed to our main upstream AS, as well another upstream
> provider.
> 
> I have taken a brief look at the paper you recommended but have not yet had
> the time to digest the information in it.
> 
> Meanwhile, can we assume (in general) that the conclusion to my original
> post is that route flap damping is more of a "legacy feature" these days and
> we can, to a larger extent, disregard it?
> 
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Ajeet Bagga <bagga_ajeet at emc.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 7, 2008, at 7:40 AM, Ang Kah Yik wrote:
> >
> >  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.
> >>
> >
> > Are you multihomed to this transit? To other upstreams? Depending on the
> > RFD implementation, withdrawal triggered suppression will indeed affect your
> > connectivity. For analysis of arguments against RFD, specifically how it
> > applies to your case, read the sigcomm presentation, <
> > http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2002/papers/routedampening.html>.
> > White paper is available via the ACM portal, <
> > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=633047>.
> >
> > ~
> > Ajeet Bagga
> > Sr. Network Engineer
> > Cloud Computing Infrastructure and Services
> > EMC
> >
> 
> 
>