[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 03:55:41PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2000, Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 03:35:46PM -0400, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > > Now what I'm trying to figure out is why anyone would want this value to
> > > NOT be set to zero. When would you not want route flushes and route
> > > changes to take immediate effect?
> >
> > Mostly to avoid total breakdown of a BGP4 router when routes are flapping.
> Isn't that what route dampening is for? The routing daemon would handle
> this situation to avoid the total breakdown.

The routing subsystem is designed to handle multiple routing daemons. A flush
operation is relatively costly, so it is a good idea to do it in longer intervals
no matter how the routes are changed (and using an user mode daemon for that would
be overkill)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.066 / U:3.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site