Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs

Danny McPherson danny at tcb.net
Wed May 23 16:31:01 UTC 2001


This is one of the reasons some folks opt to avoid the 
route servers (i.e., the data and control plane aren't 
congruent).

-danny

> NANOG members,
> 
> I have a question to the group regarding how best to avoid blackholing
> routes to peers on an ATM NAP when using route servers.
> 
> There is a case wherein my peering partner and I both have active PVCs to
> the route servers, but the PVC between my peering partner and my router is
> down. Thus, we both see routes from the route server with each other's IP as
> next-hop, but since our direct PVC is down that next-hop is no good.
> 
> It'd like a way to automatically and efficiently detect loss of next-hop and
> discard routes accordingly. Are folks generally using OAM keepalives, and if
> so, any parameters for OAM interval time and dead/alive count that seem
> practical?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Reid Knuttila
> Network Engineer
> Onvoy








More information about the NANOG mailing list