[37728] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Next-hop Reachability on ATM NAPs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Wed May 23 14:26:02 2001
Message-Id: <200105231631.KAA32094@tcb.net>
To: "'nanog@nanog.org'" <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Reply-To: danny@tcb.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:31:01 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This is one of the reasons some folks opt to avoid the
route servers (i.e., the data and control plane aren't
congruent).
-danny
> 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
