[j-nsp] BGP Prefix-Limit On A Session
jared at puck.nether.net
Thu Feb 26 22:36:51 EST 2004
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 07:23:39PM -0800, Pedro Roque Marques wrote:
> While from a provider point of view, i understand that you may wish to
> have the system handle configuration changes w/ minimum disruption
> possible, there is a cost to it.
I think that there is something that is important to
insure is properly represented here.
There are a large number of vendors that are offering
"high availability", as well as a number of redundancy features.
i think that as one views the need to result with
a stable network, the disruptive nature of BGP resets
works against network stability.
I think that as we need routers to have ever increasing
stability and uptimes, the need to avoid some disruptive behaviour
within software will become more of a "market force". This
is just my $.02, but I suspect others will agree with me here.
(See the current nanog discussions about the internet as
critical infrastructure, and how reliable must it be, etc..)
> JunOS(*) current choice is torwards one set of tradeoffs. You are
> welcome to agree or disagree w/ it, but it is a rational choice that
> is made. As with all engineering choices it has advantages and
> (*) Not that anyone needs to be reminded, but... i don't speak for
> Juniper, much less in this mailing list. This just represents my
> current understanding, which may be flawed.
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
More information about the juniper-nsp