[7963] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Big Squeeze
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Mon Mar 3 09:59:21 1997
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: ahp@hilander.com (Alec H. Peterson)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:53:45 -0500 (EST)
Cc: sherk@uunet.uu.net, randy@psg.com, SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19970303092112.IS17510@kurgan.erols.com> from "Alec H. Peterson" at Mar 3, 97 09:21:12 am
> Computational power required for a route flap is not the issue here.
>
> Many people have stated that, statistically longer prefixes flap
> more. Unfortunately, they have then said that because of this shorter
> prefixes should have looser dampening parameters put on them, when
> what they really meant was that the longer prefixes should have more
> strict dampening parameters put on them. Yes it is exactly the same
> thing, but it is an important semantic distinction. If a group of
> prefixes categorized by a its length tends to flap more than the
> average, then said group should have more strict dampening parameters
> placed on it.
>
> Alec
You're right - what you propose makes some sense. The reason people
have proposed and are damnening on longer prefixes is:
1) To encourage people to renumber into larger (P and/or PI) space, and
2) To lessen the percentage of the net which will be temporarily
unreachable by the aggressive dampener.
Avi
