Re: withdrawal propagation (was E.E. Times?)
At 12:46 PM 1/14/97 -0500, Jon Zeeff wrote:
0) Is this a bug, does it cause any problem whatsoever?
If I'm not mistaken, lots of routers have had performance problems caused by excessive rates of routing updates.
Or did I misread various previous messages to this list?
A BGP withdrawl for a route which is not in the routing table does not cause the router to update any routes and is hence not a routing update. I.e. removing a route that isn't there is not very processor intensive. Justin Newton Network Architect Erol's Internet Services
On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:32:03 -0500 "Justin W. Newton" <justin@erols.com> wrote:
A BGP withdrawl for a route which is not in the routing table does not cause the router to update any routes and is hence not a routing update. I.e. removing a route that isn't there is not very processor intensive.
Thats irrelevent, what it is doing is _broken_ and it should be fixed and implemented. Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
participants (2)
-
Justin W. Newton -
Neil J. McRae