Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Jack Bates
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" > > Nope. It's per-prefix. > > If that is the case then dampening is severely broken, because then a > router that receives a prefix over two paths will lose *both* if _one_ > flaps. > Which makes me wonder what happens when one of my BGP peers is flapping and the o

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Danny McPherson
> Thus the application effect being talked about. Sure, I understand that. I was making a different assumption... That the sources of traffic were likely from downstream ASs, not "ISP A", or even B or C, and as such, the multiplication could happen per prefix. However, without knowing the num

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Vadim Antonov
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote: > > You need at least three flaps to trigger dampening. > > i guess you really need to look at that pdf. > > randy "Better Algorithms" -- http://www.kotovnik.com/~avg/flap-rfc.txt http://www.kotovnik.com/~avg/flap-rfc.ps I didn't publish that one beca

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Danny McPherson wrote: > > Dampening is done on the eBGP router where the route enters the AS, and, > > unless I'm mistaken, per route/path and not per prefix. So the flapping > > that ISP A sees from ISP B is a completely seperate thing from the > > flapping that ISP A sees

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Danny McPherson
Hrmm... Then care to take a stab at explaining the findings in the document that Randy referenced earlier? -danny > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny McPherson) writes: > > > > Dampening is done on the eBGP router where the route enters the AS, and, > > > unless I'm mistaken, per route/path and not pe

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Danny McPherson
> Dampening is done on the eBGP router where the route enters the AS, and, > unless I'm mistaken, per route/path and not per prefix. So the flapping > that ISP A sees from ISP B is a completely seperate thing from the > flapping that ISP A sees from its customer's customer as far as the > dampeni

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Peter E. Fry wrote: > > You are right, it is depressing. However, I don't see how the penalty > > multiplication could happen here, you need a few hops in between for > > that. > Ah, but this is the Internet. Jack's two upstreams likely have direct > or indirect links bet

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Adam Rothschild
On 2003-03-12-09:01:23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Still using MRTG? Have you read this? > http://www.mit.edu/~rbeverly/papers/rtg-lisa02.pdf > Or this? http://rtg.sourceforge.net/docs/rtgfaq.html > [...] > Seriously, how much do you risk losing over one incident like this > where you don't hav

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Peter E. Fry
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > You need at least three flaps to trigger dampening. > > > i guess you really need to look at that pdf. > > You are right, it is depressing. However, I don't see how the penalty > multiplication could happen here, yo

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote: > > You need at least three flaps to trigger dampening. > i guess you really need to look at that pdf. You are right, it is depressing. However, I don't see how the penalty multiplication could happen here, you need a few hops in between for that.

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Randy Bush
> You need at least three flaps to trigger dampening. i guess you really need to look at that pdf. randy

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Randy Bush
you might want to look at . then again, you may not. it's depressing. randy

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread John Kristoff
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:53:03AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote: > traffic going to them. My router shows the last BGP peer reset about that [...] > I've not seen reference to it, since the customer only transits through my > network and depends on my redundancy, is it possible to hold his routes in >

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Michael . Dillon
> His bandwidth then drops > to 0 for almost exactly 30 minutes (MRTG isn't an exactly graph). My guess Still using MRTG? Have you read this? http://www.mit.edu/~rbeverly/papers/rtg-lisa02.pdf Or this? http://rtg.sourceforge.net/docs/rtgfaq.html Have you checked the price of 200 gigabyte hard

Re: Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote: > traffic going to them. My router shows the last BGP peer reset about that > time, so this could be me sending the global table. His bandwidth then drops > to 0 for almost exactly 30 minutes (MRTG isn't an exactly graph). My guess > (authoratative answer) w

Route Supression Problem

2003-03-12 Thread Jack Bates
Unless useful to others, feel free to just reply off-list. Background: Tuesday (yesterday) morning around 1am, I got a phone call from one of my transit customers(which seems more like a dream). I, sadly, didn't have the router they are on logging to a server, so it's impossible for me to see ex