[3433] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ping flooding
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Thu Jul 11 22:00:15 1996
From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
To: avg@ncube.com (Vadim Antonov)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:53:03 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: herry@westie.gi.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9607112000.AA29073@butler.ncube.com> from "Vadim Antonov" at Jul 11, 96 01:00:29 pm
Vadim,
] 2) Don't Do Any Dynamic Routing Where Only One Path Exists.
Certainly I would not agree with this rule.
If I have a tail router that is down, I do not want to send
traffic to him, when he is not there to receive it. Rather, I
would want my intermediate router to reject it right off.
Furthermore, I do not want to extend nondynamic notification in my
network.
------------------------ = ------------------------
Network:
rtra --------+-------+
| |
rtrb --------+ rtrd +--------- rtre ------- rtrf
| |
rtrc --------+-------+
------------------------ = ------------------------
If rtra is down, I do not want rtre to send packets to rtrd to get
to rtra, do I? Wouldn't I prefer them to be stopped ASAP?
Certainly this is a debatable point.
* Another situation is what happens when you renumber networks?
What hapens when you've large number of downstream networks? Do
you really want static routes in rtrf for all networks attached to
rtrs a,b,c,d,e?
What I find, is that in running a "large" network, filtered
dynamic routing is far preferrable to either static leaf nodes, or
unfiltered dynamic routing.
I want my dynamic routing to be binary: what I should get, or
nothing.
-alan
