Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: do not filter your customers
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins () arbor net>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:26:58 +0000


On Feb 25, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

if the rate is 1/ms ... I can fill the rib in 2million ms ... ~30mins?  Rate alone isn't the problem :( size matters.

Sure; the idea is that some sort of throttling, coupled with overall size limitations, might be useful.

People aren't trying to actively make convergence take longer, that I've seen at least.

Yes, and in most cases, the goal is to speed up convergence.  I'm positing that in these particular circumstances, fast 
convergence is not necessarily desirable, and that 'these particular circumstances' generally involve large numbers of 
updates which are not associated with turning up a new peering session being received over a short period of time.

What about routing update transmission throttling, instead?  Does that make any more sense, in terms of being liberal 
with what we accept and conservative in what (or how much, how quickly) we send?

dropping a single customer sucks, dropping an entire edge device is far far worse.

I agree; I don't mean to imply that anything should be dropped.  Again, apologies for being unclear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

          Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

                       -- John Milton



  By Date           By Thread  

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