[6989] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hank Nussbacher)
Wed Jan 15 01:29:29 1997
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 08:24:35 +0200 (IST)
From: Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>
To: "John W. Stewart III" <jstewart@metro.isi.edu>
cc: Jon Zeeff <jon@branch.net>, Jeff Young <young@mci.net>,
wsimpson@greendragon.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199701141934.AA23535@metro.isi.edu>
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, John W. Stewart III wrote:
>
> excessive rates of bona fide routing updates *can* be a
> problem. it's called route flap. and we've got route
> flap dampening to reduce the scope of such events
>
> what we've been talking about very recently on this list
> is the high rate of withdrawls that have been seen.
> specifically, e.g., withdrawls from RouterA to RouterB
> for networks that RouterA never announced to RouterB.
> this is not a route flap .. it is just a superfluous
> withdrawl and causes no operational problems. however,
> some folks were tracking the number of withdrawls and
> didn't like the large number, so the vendor was informed
> and the code was changed. it's a good and appropriate
> thing that the behavior was changed, but that doesn't
> mean that it was a bug and doesn't mean that it was
> causing any problems
Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see
that we have it installed?
-Hank
>
> /jws
>
> >
> > > 0) Is this a bug, does it cause any problem whatsoever?
> >
> > If I'm not mistaken, lots of routers have had performance problems
> > caused by excessive rates of routing updates.
> >
> > Or didI misread various previous messages to this list?
> >
> > > > I've looked at the Cisco page, and a search on "BGP, withdrawals" does
> > > > not find any mention of the bug fix release. So, I have some pointed
> >
>
