nanog mailing list archives
Re: IGPs in use
From: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
Date: 14 Oct 1998 12:14:36 -0700
smd () clock org (Sean M. Doran) writes:
BGP is fundamentally rate-limited by virtue of running on TCP.
While that's necessary, it turns out to not be sufficient. A competent implementation must also meter out the changes that it sends to a peer in some sensical fashion. IOS, for example, had a hack in it so that if it was blowing out memory, it would rate limit the number of updates that it would send to a peer.
By contrast, IGPs are *not* fundamentally rate-limited -- retransmissions are not congestion avoiding in any IGP that I know of.
In addition to the specifications that Henk has noted, it's become very clear that an IGP implementation that does NOT rate limit itself is very likely to become unstable. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IGPs in use, (continued)
- Re: IGPs in use Paul G. Donner (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Danny McPherson (Oct 13)
- Re: IGPs in use Forrest W. Christian (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Sean M. Doran (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use bmanning (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Jerry Scharf (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Sean M. Doran (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Henk Smit (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Sean M. Doran (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Vince Fuller (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use Tony Li (Oct 14)
- Re: IGPs in use alex (Oct 15)
- Re: IGPs in use Paul Ferguson (Oct 16)