Do many folks actually implement prefix-based dampening parameters? On customers or peers only? Seems like more gunk in the router configurations to confuse folks, although I suppose that it's potentially less confusing than having customers request that a given prefix be "unsuppressed". And, _if it wasn't obvious already, for all the folks suggesting that a globally routable /n (where n = some prefix length) was a requirement, you should have a look at section 1.5 "Aggregation versus damping". Even if you're multi-homed and your providers aren't performing any type of specifics suppression proxy-aggregation type stuff, an aggregate announcement from one of your upstreams *not* being suppressed could save some headaches. I don't completely agree with the "bgp fast-external-fallover" section (2.4), though I suppose it's up to the operator anyways :-) One useful addition to the document would be regarding BGP Route Refresh versus the soft-reconfiguration stuff. Along these lines, is asking why NANOG doesn't publish these types of BCP documents a silly thing? Given, the BCP from that perspective seems to suggest publishing an ID and submitting to some random IETF WG, but perhaps....? -danny

"Other" Sean:

| Have people adjusted their dampening parameters or are they still using the | Cisco defaults?

Please see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-178.html

Sean.