[j-nsp] [c-nsp] BGP route flap damping

[Ang Kah Yik]

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
>



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