North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Routing flaps, was Re: Ping flooding
- From: Forrest W. Christian
- Date: Fri Jul 12 12:39:04 1996
Forgot to throw one more item in here...
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that you're missing the point here.
> In most larger ISP backbones, the behavior of their IGP is indeed
> visible to the public, since in most instances, most of the Internet
> traffic relies on the stability of these interior (an esoteric term)
> networks. Therefore, whether interior or exterior flap is really of
> no relevance in this context.
> In smaller ISPs, where not a great deal of public traffic is transiting
> their (interior) backbone, granted, it is of lesser importance and
What I forgot to say is that I fully agree with what you are saying here-
I doubt that a large provider such as Sprint or MCI or Agis or any other
major internet backbone is going to be able to hide much of their
internal route flapping, as their internal routes ARE their external routes.
My original note was intended to reply to the specific case of using
dynamic routing to distribute routes which could just as easily be done
with static routes - I.E. where there is one and only one path to the
destination. In this case, it is sometimes desirable and necessary to
run some sort of interior routing protocol, but it is not desirable that
flaps caused by a break along the one and only one path be propogated to
the outside world, but instead the packets should be null0'd at the point
of path convergence.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -