On Feb 25, 2012, at 2:15 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > if the rate is 1/ms ... I can fill the rib in 2million ms ... ~30mins? Rate > alone isn't the problem :( size matters.
Sure; the idea is that some sort of throttling, coupled with overall size limitations, might be useful. > People aren't trying to actively make convergence take longer, that I've seen > at least. Yes, and in most cases, the goal is to speed up convergence. I'm positing that in these particular circumstances, fast convergence is not necessarily desirable, and that 'these particular circumstances' generally involve large numbers of updates which are not associated with turning up a new peering session being received over a short period of time. What about routing update transmission throttling, instead? Does that make any more sense, in terms of being liberal with what we accept and conservative in what (or how much, how quickly) we send? > dropping a single customer sucks, dropping an entire edge device is far far > worse. I agree; I don't mean to imply that anything should be dropped. Again, apologies for being unclear. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
