[37498] in North American Network Operators' Group
Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reid Knuttila)
Mon May 14 22:46:55 2001
Message-ID: <B1A67F443C70D3119CD900508B556B39011C7BE7@upp-2.upp.onvoy.com>
From: Reid Knuttila <Reid.Knuttila@Onvoy.com>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:22:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
NANOG members,
I have a question to the group regarding how best to avoid blackholing
routes to peers on an ATM NAP when using route servers.
There is a case wherein my peering partner and I both have active PVCs to
the route servers, but the PVC between my peering partner and my router is
down. Thus, we both see routes from the route server with each other's IP as
next-hop, but since our direct PVC is down that next-hop is no good.
It'd like a way to automatically and efficiently detect loss of next-hop and
discard routes accordingly. Are folks generally using OAM keepalives, and if
so, any parameters for OAM interval time and dead/alive count that seem
practical?
Thanks,
--
Reid Knuttila
Network Engineer
Onvoy
