Service Provider Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
shtsuchi at cisco.com
Thu Mar 17 11:56:35 CDT 2011
I'm Shishio,Cisco Systems Japan.
I,Seiichi and Randy did presentation about "BGP topic" on JANOG27 which held 20th & 21st January 2011 in Kanazawa.
Randy explained "Route Flap Damping Considered Useable".
This report explains how to improve today's harmful RFD.
We heard various opinion from bgp operators about RFD.
So we took survey about "Service Provider Route Flap Damping Deployment Status" on janog at janog.gr.jp.
We would like to hear more opinions to analyze current RFD operation,problem and so on.
Could you please open the following url and answer the questionaire?
The JAPAN result summary is below.
Q1.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?
Yes: 5 No: 13
Q2.If you select No on Q1,why?
Do not have the need: 3
Did not know about the feature: 2
No benefits expected: 3
Customers would complain:1
Because I read RIPE-378 :2
Q3.If you select Yes on Q1,what parameter do you use?
Default parameters: 3
RIPE-178 : 0
RIPE-210 : 0
RIPE-229 : 0
Q4.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?''
Yes: 12 No: 7
Q5.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K?
Yes: 10 No: 9
Q6.If you have any comments, please fill this box.
-Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped sometimes.
-We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non-damped route.
-From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us
that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and
ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?"
-We use damping pretty heavily
-I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router
has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD.
Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi at cisco.com>
More information about the NANOG