Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2
Steven J. Richardson
sjr at merit.edu
Fri Jun 21 18:28:22 UTC 1996
Yeah, that's essentially what cisco said, though I'd
guess that you ought to be able to at least not
propagate the withdraw back to the peer who sent it
But that's just my opinion.
>From nanog-owner at merit.edu Fri Jun 21 11:26:41 1996
>Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [184.108.40.206]) by home.merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id LAA03178; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: (from daemon at localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id LAA16611 for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:52 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from chops.icp.net (chops.icp.net [220.127.116.11]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id LAA16603 for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:31 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by chops.icp.net id <20689>; Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:23 +0100
>From: Sean Doran <smd at icp.net>
>To: justin at erols.com, nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Re: Withdrawls and announcements attempt 2
>Message-Id: <96Jun21.112023+0100_edt.20689+60 at chops.icp.net>
>Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:20:18 +0100
>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>Keeping track of the state of who got announced what is likely
>to be a very very very bad idea for busy BGP talkers carrying
>today's amount of NLRI and instability.
>There are some hacks around the simplistic "if it's in my RIB,
>I have to propagate withdrawals to all my neighbours" for some
>cases, but a more comprehensive fix would require some Thinking.
>This should probably get migrated over to the BGP list.
More information about the NANOG