Re: [j-nsp] BGP timer

On 4/29/24 08:31, Saku Ytti via juniper-nsp wrote:

> But why is this desirable? Why do I want to prioritise stability
> always, instead of prioritising convergence on well-behaved interfaces
> and stability on poorly behaved interfaces?
>
> If I can pick just one, I'll prioritise convergence every time for both.
>
> That is, if I cannot have exponential back-off, I won't kill
> convergence 'just in case', because it's not me who will feel the pain
> of my decisions, it's my customers. Netengs and particularly infosec
> people quite often are unnecessarily conservative in their policies,
> because they don't have skin in the game, they feel the upside, but
> not the downside.

Over the decades, I've had a handful of customers that preferred uptime 
to convergence, because they were measured on that by their boss, 
organization or auditors.

You know - the kind of people that would refuse to reboot a router to 
implement new code, because "Last Reboot: 5y, 6w ago" looks far better 
than "Last Reboot: 15min ago" - those people.

Protocols staying up despite the underlay being unstable means traffic 
dies and users are not happy. It's really that simple.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp