withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
freedman at netaxs.com
Wed Jan 15 15:59:24 UTC 1997
No, people (like me) are likely to upgrade so that we don't show up as withdrawing
> 100,000 routes/day to the RA even though we've had a 'deny .*' filter-list towards
them for many months (since we don't peer with anyone currently through the RA
Whether it's a bugfix or an optimization, it hasn't been bothering my routers
CPU-wise - and I suspect it hasn't bothered their oomphy rsd boxes.
But I'd like to think that most people who peer with the RSs follow these issues
and know to upgrade whether it's called a bugfix or not.
> On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:39:15 EST
> "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart at metro.isi.edu> wrote:
> > if you think it's a bug, then a fix is available
> And more people are likely to upgrade if it is phrased as a bugfix.
> > if you think it's an optimization, then the new code is available
> This will make people think that it isn't anything to worry about.
> > why are we still talking about this?
> Because its still happening?
More information about the NANOG