nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Big Squeeze
From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:53:45 -0500 (EST)
Computational power required for a route flap is not the issue here. Many people have stated that, statistically longer prefixes flap more. Unfortunately, they have then said that because of this shorter prefixes should have looser dampening parameters put on them, when what they really meant was that the longer prefixes should have more strict dampening parameters put on them. Yes it is exactly the same thing, but it is an important semantic distinction. If a group of prefixes categorized by a its length tends to flap more than the average, then said group should have more strict dampening parameters placed on it. Alec
You're right - what you propose makes some sense. The reason people have proposed and are damnening on longer prefixes is: 1) To encourage people to renumber into larger (P and/or PI) space, and 2) To lessen the percentage of the net which will be temporarily unreachable by the aggressive dampener. Avi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: The Big Squeeze, (continued)
- 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)