[c-nsp] Quick question regarding BGP route churn & PRP-2

[Saku Ytti]

On (2013-07-08 12:25 +0200), Mark Tinka wrote:

> 	http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-580
> That's the ongoing work.

I think it was bit early of RIPE to make new recommendation pretty much
immediately as the RFC came out.
Rationale was 'no one objected in the list'. I guess by that logic, it
would be pretty easy to have obscure recommendations by choosing matters
people don't know about or don't care about.

I frankly would not suggest dampening even based on this new RFC. I think
what would be useful, would be to penalize via policy flapping routes

'set term damp from damped then local-pref 50' instead of the implied 'then
reject'

I don't feel I'm in the position to make the decision for my customer when
they should be able to receive unstable route and when not.

-- 
  ++ytti