IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ISPACs

Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> Thu, 05 December 1996 07:37 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa01299; 5 Dec 96 2:37 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03430; 5 Dec 96 2:37 EST
Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA01605 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 17:49:19 +1100
Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA08161; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:49:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA19007; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:48:49 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 22:48:49 -0800
Message-Id: <199612050648.WAA19007@chimp.jnx.com>
From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
To: avg@pluris.com
CC: cidrd@iepg.org
In-reply-to: <199612050440.UAA00904@quest.pluris.com> (message from Vadim Antonov on Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:40:03 -0800)
Subject: Re: ISPACs

   Nice idea, but i do not think it is practical.  Too complicated,
   and the potential yield is small :(

   I'd rather fought the battle with CSU vendors and router manufacturers
   to change default timing parameters in CSUs and make static routes
   persistent by default (and add exponential dampening in line keepalive
   protocols).  Those two simple tricks would reduce flap by 90% by
   killing its source instead of treating its symptoms.

   And then, there's always TWD.

And pray tell, how did this diverge to route flap?

Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email