On 4/29/24 08:31, Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp wrote:
But why is this desirable? Why do I want to prioritise stability always, instead of prioritising convergence on well-behaved interfaces and stability on poorly behaved interfaces? If I can pick just one, I'll prioritise convergence every time for both. That is, if I cannot have exponential back-off, I won't kill convergence 'just in case', because it's not me who will feel the pain of my decisions, it's my customers. Netengs and particularly infosec people quite often are unnecessarily conservative in their policies, because they don't have skin in the game, they feel the upside, but not the downside.
Over the decades, I've had a handful of customers that preferred uptime to convergence, because they were measured on that by their boss, organization or auditors.
You know - the kind of people that would refuse to reboot a router to implement new code, because "Last Reboot: 5y, 6w ago" looks far better than "Last Reboot: 15min ago" - those people.
Protocols staying up despite the underlay being unstable means traffic dies and users are not happy. It's really that simple.
Mark. _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
