On Mar 16, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>>There a difference of several orders of magnitude between BFD keepalive
>>intervals (in ms) and BGP (in seconds) with generally configurable
>>multipliers vs. >>hold timer.
>>With Real time media and ever faster last miles, BGP hold timer ma
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Sudeep Khuraijam
wrote:
> There a difference of several orders of magnitude between BFD keepalive
> intervals (in ms) and BGP (in seconds) with generally configurable
> multipliers vs. hold timer.
> With Real time media and ever faster last miles, BGP hold time
-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: bfd-like mechanism for LANPHY connections between providers
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jensen Tyler
mailto:jty...@fiberutilities.com>&
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Jensen Tyler wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong but to detect a failure by default BGP would wait
> the "hold-timer" then declare a peer dead and converge.
>
> So you would be looking at 90 seconds(juniper default?) + CPU bound
> convergence time to recover? Am I
-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:55 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: bfd-like mechanism for LANPHY connections between providers
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jensen Tyler wrote:
> We have many switches between us and Level3 so w
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 02:55:14PM -0400, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>
> This is often my topology as well. I am satisfied with BGP's
> mechanism and default timers, and have been for many years. The
> reason for this is quite simple: failures are relatively rare, my
> convergence time to a good sta
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Jensen Tyler wrote:
> We have many switches between us and Level3 so we don't get a "interface
> down" to drop the session in the event of a failure.
This is often my topology as well. I am satisfied with BGP's
mechanism and default timers, and have been for man
down"
to drop the session in the event of a failure.
-Original Message-
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:26 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: bfd-like mechanism for LANPHY connections between providers
Richard A Steenber
Richard A Steenbergen wrote on 16/03/2011 19:03:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:56:28PM +0200, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
Are there any transit providers out there that accept using the BFD (or
any other similar) mechanism for eBGP peerings?
If no, how do you solve the issue with the physic
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:56:28PM +0200, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou wrote:
> Are there any transit providers out there that accept using the BFD (or
> any other similar) mechanism for eBGP peerings?
> If no, how do you solve the issue with the physical interface state when
> LANPHY connections are
10 matches
Mail list logo
