On 4/29/24 17:42, Lee Starnes via juniper-nsp wrote:
As for BFD and stability with aggressive settings, we don't run too
aggressive on this, but certainly do require it because the physical links
have not gone down in our cases when we have had issues, causing a larger
delay in killing the
Thank you everyone for the replies on this topic. For us, we would rather
keep a link down longer when it has an issue and goes down than to have it
come back up and then go down again. This is because the flapping is very
destructive to live video and VoIP. Having several diverse backbone
Juniper Business Use Only
On 4/29/24, 02:41, "Saku Ytti" mailto:s...@ytti.fi>> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 at 21:20, Jeff Haas via juniper-nsp
> > BFD holddown is the right feature for this.
>
> But why is this desirable? Why do I want to prioritise stability
> always, instead of prioritising
On 4/29/24 09:13, Saku Ytti wrote:
100%, what Mark implied was not what I was trying to communicate.
Sure, go ahead and damp flapping interfaces, but to penalise on first
down event, when most of them are just that, one event, to me, is just
bad policy made by people who don't feel the cost.
On 4/29/24 09:15, Saku Ytti wrote:
You are making this unnecessarily complicated.
You could simply configure that first down event doesn't add enough
points to damp, 2nd does. And you are wildly better off.
Perfect is the enemy of done and kills all movement towards better.
Fair enough.
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:13, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> It comes down to how you classify stable (well-behaved) vs. unstable
> (misbehaving) interfaces.
You are making this unnecessarily complicated.
You could simply configure that first down event doesn't add enough
points to damp,
On Mon, 29 Apr 2024 at 10:07, Gert Doering via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> The interesting question is "how to react when underlay seems to be stable
> again"? "bring up upper layers right away, with exponential decay flap
> dampening" or "always wait 15 minutes to be SURE it's stable!!!"...
100%,
On 4/29/24 09:06, Gert Doering wrote:
Yes, but that's a slightly different tangent. If the underlay is unstable,
I think we're all in agremeent that higher layers should not send packets
there.
It comes down to how you classify stable (well-behaved) vs. unstable
(misbehaving) interfaces.
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 08:52:17AM +0200, Mark Tinka via juniper-nsp wrote:
> Protocols staying up despite the underlay being unstable means traffic dies
> and users are not happy. It's really that simple.
Yes, but that's a slightly different tangent. If the underlay is unstable,
I think
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
On Sun, 28 Apr 2024 at 21:20, Jeff Haas via juniper-nsp
wrote:
> BFD holddown is the right feature for this.
> WARNING: BFD holddown is known to be problematic between Juniper and Cisco
> implementations due to where each start their state machines for BFD vs. BGP.
>
> It was a partial
11 matches
Mail list logo
