The Big Squeeze
freedman at netaxs.com
Mon Mar 3 14:53:45 UTC 1997
> Computational power required for a route flap is not the issue here.
> Many people have stated that, statistically longer prefixes flap
> more. Unfortunately, they have then said that because of this shorter
> prefixes should have looser dampening parameters put on them, when
> what they really meant was that the longer prefixes should have more
> strict dampening parameters put on them. Yes it is exactly the same
> thing, but it is an important semantic distinction. If a group of
> prefixes categorized by a its length tends to flap more than the
> average, then said group should have more strict dampening parameters
> placed on it.
You're right - what you propose makes some sense. The reason people
have proposed and are damnening on longer prefixes is:
1) To encourage people to renumber into larger (P and/or PI) space, and
2) To lessen the percentage of the net which will be temporarily
unreachable by the aggressive dampener.
More information about the NANOG