Re: [j-nsp] BGP timer

On 4/29/24 09:06, Gert Doering wrote:

> Yes, but that's a slightly different tangent.  If the underlay is unstable,
> I think we're all in agremeent that higher layers should not send packets
> there.

It comes down to how you classify stable (well-behaved) vs. unstable 
(misbehaving) interfaces.

This will vary for networks, backbones, providers, e.t.c.

In many cases, manual intervention will be required because even the 
most aggressive or the most conservative dampening settings will not be 
able to account for what stable and unstable interfaces means. I suppose 
one could "AI" it, but that's outside the realm of my abilities.

In other words, a one-size-fits-all is unlikely to work here. Plenty of 
tools exist, and I think it is up to the operator to educate themselves 
on all of them and make the best decision for a given scenario.

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