mailing list archives
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank () ibm net il>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 08:24:35 +0200 (IST)
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, John W. Stewart III wrote:
excessive rates of bona fide routing updates *can* be a
problem. it's called route flap. and we've got route
flap dampening to reduce the scope of such events
what we've been talking about very recently on this list
is the high rate of withdrawls that have been seen.
specifically, e.g., withdrawls from RouterA to RouterB
for networks that RouterA never announced to RouterB.
this is not a route flap .. it is just a superfluous
withdrawl and causes no operational problems. however,
some folks were tracking the number of withdrawls and
didn't like the large number, so the vendor was informed
and the code was changed. it's a good and appropriate
thing that the behavior was changed, but that doesn't
mean that it was a bug and doesn't mean that it was
causing any problems
Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see
that we have it installed?
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 didI misread various previous messages to this list?
I've looked at the Cisco page, and a search on "BGP, withdrawals" does
not find any mention of the bug fix release. So, I have some pointed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) William Allen Simpson (Jan 13)
RE: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) ccotton (Jan 13)
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Justin W. Newton (Jan 14)
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?) Paul Ferguson (Jan 15)