[32745] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dampening on Juniper routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (john heasley)
Sat Dec 9 20:36:43 2000
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:34:47 +0000
From: john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net>
To: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001210013447.D23821@shrubbery.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012091828440.26581-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>; from nanog@EnterZone.Net on Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 06:32:32PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 06:32:32PM -0500, John Fraizer darkened my spool with the following:
>
>
> Can anyone relate any information with regards to how Juniper routers
> differ from Cisco in respect to BGP dampening?
>
> We are seeing issues with one of our peers who is using an M20. If the
> BGP session is cycled, that peer is damping our routes for aprox 1hr. We
> don't have this problem with any other peers, all of whom are using Cisco
> products.
there once was a bug where junos penalized flaps twice, once at withdraw
time and once at re-advertize time. you can compensate by doubling
your/the default params.
> There has to be some huge difference in the way that the Juniper is
> calculating the penalty and decay.
>
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
>
> ---
> John Fraizer
> EnterZone, Inc
>
>
