Re: it was damp in belleview
On (2007-06-23 08:22 -1000), Randy Bush wrote: > for those wishing historical perspective on route flap damping, document > ripe-378 (may 2006) says > i.e., it's time to turn it off. you are damaging your customers and > others' customers. I've always thought that damping as an idea is a good one, but implementation is done horribly wrong. I want my customers to get best of the stable paths, i.e. I'd like to see method to dynamically worsen routes in path selection that are unstable, local-pref would be the obvious choice for me. -- ++ytti
Re: it was damp in belleview
>> i.e., it's time to turn it off. you are damaging your customers and >> others' customers. > There is a growing number of "Tier 1" NSPs who do not dampen anymore (or > at least they don't dampen their customers). damping one's customers has never been very sane. they pay us to put up with their . damping a customer is direct death to them. i wish all my competitors did that. damping one's peers has been another matter. this is what caused the nanog meeting prefix to be widely damped, and this is the issue i am addressing. and, if you tell us that you need to damp in order to save your routers from drowning from churn, then you had best stand up and cry "bs!" when dave and john they tell us two million prefixes is just fine. and your rir attendees had best be on the very prefix-count-conservative side in rir pi space allocation discussions. randy
Re: it was damp in belleview
Randy Bush wrote: i.e., it's time to turn it off. you are damaging your customers and others' customers. There is a growing number of "Tier 1" NSPs who do not dampen anymore (or at least they don't dampen their customers). NTT is one of them. Who are the others? -David
