nanog mailing list archives
Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:18:47 -0600
On May 25, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Iljitsch van Beijnum:30 60 isn't a good choice because that means that after 30.1 seconds a keepalive comes in and then after 60.0 seconds the session will expirewhile the second one would be there in 60.1 seconds.Wouldn't the underlying TCP retry sooner than that?
I suspect that given update messages serve as implicit keepalives, it's _extremely rare that an actual keepalive message is needed in global routing environments. -danny
Current thread:
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers, (continued)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Danny McPherson (May 22)
- RE: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Deepak Jain (May 22)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Steve Bertrand (May 22)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Jack Bates (May 22)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Steve Bertrand (May 22)
- RE: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Ivan Pepelnjak (May 23)
- RE: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Frank Bulk (May 24)
- RE: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Ivan Pepelnjak (May 23)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Florian Weimer (May 25)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Danny McPherson (May 25)
- Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers Florian Weimer (May 25)
- IXP BGP timers (was: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers) Chris Caputo (May 25)
- Re: IXP BGP timers (was: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers) Andree Toonk (May 25)
- RE: IXP BGP timers (was: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers) John.Herbert (May 25)