[150496] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: do not filter your customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dobbins, Roland)
Sat Feb 25 02:28:04 2012
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:26:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaab2EqWcPupzRaH_Duuf3Tki6UMHbDupJzpoyiz9TipmA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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? R=
ate alone isn't the problem :( size matters.
Sure; the idea is that some sort of throttling, coupled with overall size l=
imitations, 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 lar=
ge numbers of updates which are not associated with turning up a new peerin=
g 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 conserva=
tive in what (or how much, how quickly) we send?
> dropping a single customer sucks, dropping an entire edge device is far f=
ar worse.
I agree; I don't mean to imply that anything should be dropped. Again, apo=
logies for being unclear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
-- John Milton
