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


Reply via email to