[routing-wg]Draft doc proposing Route Flap Damping Obsolesence

I suspect that the generousity needs to be over time - i.e. route flap 
during convergence is normal and you may see a burst over some minutes 
(details can be dredged out of update logs).

I suspect that we need more think time here, and perhaps some more 
investigation - what we don't want is to simply generate more NOC calls to 
manually undamp routes, so where and how route propagation supression 
should be applied deserves some considerable thought.

   Geoff




At 03:58 AM 29/04/2006, Rob Evans wrote:
>>i suggested that the rfd spec be modified, at least to be per-prefix as 
>>opposed to prefix+path, to allow the disaster prefixes to be easily 
>>detected and damped.
>
>I get the impression from RFC2439 (sec. 4.4.3) that the authors intended 
>it would be optional for the path to be included in the per-route state, 
>so perhaps some vendor pressure to implement the relevant knob?  Or am I 
>missing some other aspect of the document?
>
>Then the pathological prefixes could be damped by using some "generous" 
>parameters that most prefixes would never reach in even the most severe 
>circumstances.
>
>Is that the idea?
>
>Rob
>