[50841] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jesper Skriver)
Sun Aug 11 21:03:54 2002
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:01:23 +0200
From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>
To: Lane Patterson <lpatterson@equinix.com>
Cc: 'Petri Helenius' <pete@he.iki.fi>,
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>,
Lane Patterson <lpatterson@equinix.com>,
'Petri Helenius' <pete@he.iki.fi>,
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4FA6CECCC8A3D41186F700B0D0784FF40242E685@hq-exchange.corp.equinix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:22:00PM -0700, Lane Patterson wrote:
> BGP keepalive/hold timers are configurable even down to granularity of
> link or PVC level keepalives, but for session stability reasons, it
> appears that most ISPs at GigE exchanges choose not to tweak them down
> from the defaults. IIRC, Juniper is 30/90 and Cisco is 60/180. My
> gut feel was that even something like 10/30 would be reasonable, but
> nobody seems compelled that this is much of an issue.
Your Cisco router (say a GSR) will go foobar if you use 10/30 seconds
timers, a IGP topology change, causing a new next-hop interface for
100k routes, will cause processes (probably CEF related) to run for so
long, that you will loose your BGP keepalives, thus loose sessions, and
everything will go *BOOM* - so please be nice and don't do that without
real testing.
/Jesper
--
Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456
Senior network engineer @ AS3292, TDC Tele Danmark
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
