nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Big Squeeze
From: Erik Sherk <sherk () uunet uu net>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 09:05:17 -0500
When dampening was first being rolled out I remember one of the early networks that got hit was PSI's net 38/8. Treating flapping prefixes differently based on length has more to do with how many people scream when prefixes covering a large amount of address space get dampened than the impact of the route flap of an individual prefix on the router.Also, it is thought that longer prefixes tend to flap more than shorter. randy
Sean has a good point here. A flap of a /8 is the same as a flap of a /24 from a computational point of view. There is clearly some social engineering going on here. If you want your long prefix to be golbally visable and you allow it to flap, then you will be subject to dampening. On the other hand if you renumber into a larger aggregate, then you are protected from dampening (to a greater degree). Kind of a 'carrot and stick' approch. :-) Erik - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: The Big Squeeze, (continued)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Scott Huddle (Mar 02)
- RE: The Big Squeeze Jim Fleming (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Kim Hubbard (Mar 02)
- RE: The Big Squeeze Jim Fleming (Mar 02)
- RE: The Big Squeeze Jim Fleming (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Sean Donelan (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Alan Barrett (Mar 03)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Erik Sherk (Mar 03)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Alec H. Peterson (Mar 03)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Avi Freedman (Mar 03)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Bradley Dunn (Mar 03)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Peter Galbavy (Mar 04)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Tony Barber (Mar 04)