BGP dampening parameters

Danny McPherson danny at qwest.net
Sat Dec 11 04:48:16 UTC 1999


Do many folks actually implement prefix-based dampening parameters?  On 
customers or peers only?  Seems like more gunk in the router configurations to 
confuse folks, although I suppose that it's potentially less confusing than 
having customers request that a given prefix be "unsuppressed".

And, _if it wasn't obvious already, for all the folks suggesting that a 
globally routable /n (where n = some prefix length) was a requirement, you 
should have a look at section 1.5 "Aggregation versus damping".  Even if 
you're multi-homed and your providers aren't performing any type of specifics 
suppression proxy-aggregation type stuff, an aggregate announcement from one 
of your upstreams *not* being suppressed could save some headaches.

I don't completely agree with the "bgp fast-external-fallover" section (2.4), 
though I suppose it's up to the operator anyways :-)
 
One useful addition to the document would be regarding BGP Route Refresh 
versus the soft-reconfiguration stuff.

Along these lines, is asking why NANOG doesn't publish these types of BCP 
documents a silly thing?  Given, the BCP from that perspective seems to 
suggest publishing an ID and submitting to some random IETF WG, but 
perhaps....?

-danny 

> "Other" Sean:
> 
> | Have people adjusted their dampening parameters or are they still using the
> | Cisco defaults?
> 
> Please see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-178.html
> 
> 	Sean.
> 






More information about the NANOG mailing list