nanog mailing list archives
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
From: "Justin W. Newton" <justin () erols com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:32:03 -0500
At 12:46 PM 1/14/97 -0500, Jon Zeeff wrote:
0) Is this a bug, does it cause any problem whatsoever?If I'm not mistaken, lots of routers have had performance problems caused by excessive rates of routing updates. Or did I misread various previous messages to this list?
A BGP withdrawl for a route which is not in the routing table does not cause the router to update any routes and is hence not a routing update. I.e. removing a route that isn't there is not very processor intensive. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?), (continued)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) John W. Stewart III (Jan 13)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Dorian R. Kim (Jan 13)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Jeff Young (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Jon Zeeff (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) John W. Stewart III (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Hank Nussbacher (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Tony Li (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Dorian R. Kim (Jan 14)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Neil J. McRae (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Neil J. McRae (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) John W. Stewart III (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Neil J. McRae (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) John W. Stewart III (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Neil J. McRae (Jan 15)
- Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Avi Freedman (Jan 15)