Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs
From: Danny McPherson <danny () tcb net>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:31:01 -0600



This is one of the reasons some folks opt to avoid the 
route servers (i.e., the data and control plane aren't 
congruent).

-danny

NANOG members,

I have a question to the group regarding how best to avoid blackholing
routes to peers on an ATM NAP when using route servers.

There is a case wherein my peering partner and I both have active PVCs to
the route servers, but the PVC between my peering partner and my router is
down. Thus, we both see routes from the route server with each other's IP as
next-hop, but since our direct PVC is down that next-hop is no good.

It'd like a way to automatically and efficiently detect loss of next-hop and
discard routes accordingly. Are folks generally using OAM keepalives, and if
so, any parameters for OAM interval time and dead/alive count that seem
practical?

Thanks,

--
Reid Knuttila
Network Engineer
Onvoy






  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]