Aggressive route flap dampening
Rusty Zickefoose
rusty at mci.net
Mon Jul 7 19:24:43 UTC 1997
Michael,
I believe the primary purpose of the /19 filtering was to reduce the
size of the route table. The increased stability this caused was just
a happy side affect.
>
> Can aggressive route flap dampening replace the need for /19 prefix filtering?
> For instance, could the old Class C space be filtered on the /24 boundary
> if this sort of flap dampening was put in place? Here is Paul Ferguson's
> comments from the pagan mailing list:
>
> >Again, I mention the fact that aggressive route-flap dampening
> >could be used in the place of prefix length traffic filters, but
> >someone/something needs to educate the latter group to implement
> >a less draconian method of protecting themselves from misbehaving
> >announcements. If I am not remiss, the predominate reasoning for
> >filtering on /19's and longer was an assumption that smaller
> >announcements were responsible for the majority of the routing
> >instability, and that simply blocking these announcements at
> >an arbitrary prefix length would be the simplest way to 'fix'
> >the problem. This may be true, but an alternate method of
> >approach for this problem could solve all of this squabbling
> >once and for all, at least in regard to this issue.
>
> ********************************************************
> Michael Dillon voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Senior Systems Architect fax: +1-415-482-2844
> PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
>
> "The People You Know. The People You Trust."
> ********************************************************
>
>
--
Rusty
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| MCI Communications rusty at mci.net |
| Internet MCI note the Reply-to |
| PGP Key: DB183CA5 |
---------------------| http://infopage.mci.net |---------------------
More information about the NANOG
mailing list