lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 <ak@suse.de> 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)

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  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