[114740] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multi-homed clients and BGP timers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Mon May 25 16:09:51 2009
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:09:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: <462B499D-B256-4AA5-A12B-FF35E111E29A@tcb.net> (Danny McPherson's
message of "Mon, 25 May 2009 12:18:47 -0600")
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* Danny McPherson:
> 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
>>> expire
>>> while 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.
See the subject of this thread. 8-) I don't think we're talking about
full tables here, so you actually have to rely on keepalives
(plus TCP retransmits).
