* Danny McPherson: > On May 25, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Iljitsch van Beijnum: >> >>> 30 60 isn't a good choice because that means that after 30.1 >>> seconds a >>> keepalive comes in and then after 60.0 seconds the session will >>> expire >>> while the second one would be there in 60.1 seconds. >> >> Wouldn't the underlying TCP retry sooner than that? > > I suspect that given update messages serve as implicit > keepalives, it's _extremely rare that an actual keepalive > message is needed in global routing environments.
See the subject of this thread. 8-) I don't think we're talking about full tables here, so you actually have to rely on keepalives (plus TCP retransmits).