[50854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Mon Aug 12 09:54:02 2002
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com>
To: "Vadim Antonov" <avg@exigengroup.com>,
"Lane Patterson" <lpatterson@equinix.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:44:53 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Thus spake "Vadim Antonov" <avg@exigengroup.com>
> It makes little sense to detect transient glitches. Any possible reaction
> on those glitches (i.e. withdrawal of exterior routes with subsequent
> reinstatement) is more damaging than the glitches themselves.
(Ignoring BGP for the moment, which has no clue of the reliability of its links)
That's due to the "slow down, fast up" nature of IETF protocols. Do you really
want a link or routing protocol claiming your link is "up" if it passes only 33%
of your keepalives?
IMHO, the key to fast-response protocols is reversing this behavior: require
(say) 10 keepalives in a row for a link to be "up", and missing one forces it
"down".
S
