Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sensean ymore?)

2002-08-10 Thread Petri Helenius
Mike Hughes wrote: > But, how does that work when you may be delivering multiple q-tags on a > single GigE port (for example)? If only one tag is affected, you don't > want to drop link, right? > > So, we're back to detection at layer 3, can I ping it, do I have > adjacency, etc. > > Some sort

Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sensean ymore?)

2002-08-10 Thread Mike Hughes
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Lane Patterson wrote: > BGP keepalive/hold timers are configurable even down to granularity > of link or PVC level keepalives, but for session stability reasons, > it appears that most ISPs at GigE exchanges choose not to > tweak them down from the defaults. Endpoint liv

Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sensean ymore?)

2002-08-10 Thread Vadim Antonov
It makes little sense to detect transient glitches. Any possible reaction on those glitches (i.e. withdrawal of exterior routes with subsequent reinstatement) is more damaging than the glitches themselves. --vadim On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Lane Patterson wrote: > > BGP keepalive/hold timers are