Fwd: Service Provider Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
Dear NANOG Thanks for a lot of answer and comments to the survey. We will close this survey in 25th May 17:30 of the UTC time. If you could answer the survey,could you open url. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey We will update our draft,and let you know. Regards, -Shishio -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Service Provider Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:56:35 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya <shtsuchi@cisco.com> To: nanog@nanog.org CC: shtsuchi@cisco.com, kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp, randy@psg.com, cristel@iij.ad.jp Dear NANOG, I'm Shishio,Cisco Systems Japan. I,Seiichi and Randy did presentation about "BGP topic" on JANOG27 which held 20th & 21st January 2011 in Kanazawa. http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG27%20Programs#qe7ec71d Randy explained "Route Flap Damping Considered Useable". http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/222-101117.ripe-rfd.pdf This report explains how to improve today's harmful RFD. We heard various opinion from bgp operators about RFD. So we took survey about "Service Provider Route Flap Damping Deployment Status" on janog@janog.gr.jp. We would like to hear more opinions to analyze current RFD operation,problem and so on. Could you please open the following url and answer the questionaire? https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey The JAPAN result summary is below. ----------------------------------- Q1.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? Yes: 5 No: 13 Q2.If you select No on Q1,why? Do not have the need: 3 Did not know about the feature: 2 No benefits expected: 3 Customers would complain:1 Because I read RIPE-378 :2 Other: 3 Q3.If you select Yes on Q1,what parameter do you use? Default parameters: 3 RIPE-178 : 0 RIPE-210 : 0 RIPE-229 : 0 Other: 3 Q4.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?'' Yes: 12 No: 7 Q5.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? Yes: 10 No: 9 Q6.If you have any comments, please fill this box. -Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped sometimes. -We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non-damped route. -From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?" -We use damping pretty heavily -I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD. ----------------------------------- other reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 Best Regards,
Dear NANOG We really appreciate response to the survey. We could get 63 response from global operators groups. And we had published result of the survey as internet-draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02 We would like to refer the survey result to improve vender implementation. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? YES:13,NO:49 Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? Do not have the need:10 Did not know about the feature:5 No benefits expected:10 Customer would complain:5 Because I read RIPE-379:15 Other:6 Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? Default Parameter:6 RIPE-178:1 RIPE-210:0 RIPE-229:1 Other:7 Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?'' YES:33 NO:29 Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? YES:24 NO:32 Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations should be changed to 6K? YES:17 NO:18 Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. Please see the draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02#se... Best Regards, -Shishio
participants (1)
-
Shishio Tsuchiya