datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Document stream: ISE
Last updated: 2013-03-20 (latest revision 2012-06-21)
Intended RFC status: Unknown
Other versions: plain text, pdf, html

ISE State: Response to Review Needed
Document shepherd: No shepherd assigned

IESG State: I-D Exists
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

Internet Engineering Task Force                         S. Tsuchiya, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Informational                               S. Kawamura
Expires: December 23, 2012                             NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.
                                                                 R. Bush
                                                              C. Pelsser
                                         Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.
                                                           June 21, 2012

              Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
             draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-05

Abstract

   BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route
   stability.  It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing
   CPU load on the routers.

   But it has side-effects.  Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use
   Route Flap Damping (see [RIPE-378]).

   Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive
   parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable].

   This document describes results of a survey conducted among service
   provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

Tsuchiya, et al.        Expires December 23, 2012               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            RFD Depoyment Survey                 June 2012

   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Survey Purpose  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Survey's target and period  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Global  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Survey Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.1.  Q1.Which is the best description of your job role?  . . . . 3
       3.1.1.  Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
       3.1.2.  Global  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     3.2.  Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?  . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.3.  Q3.If you select No on Q2,why?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.4.  Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? . . . 4
     3.5.  Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap
           Damping Considered Usable?''  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.6.  Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do
           you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 5
     3.7.  Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress
           Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default
           value on implementations should be changed to 6K?'' . . . . 5
     3.8.  Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box.  . . . . 5
       3.8.1.  Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
       3.8.2.  Global  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   4.  Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

[include full document text]