Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?

• Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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.

JE

-
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/

• Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Previous message: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• In reply to: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Reply: Andi Kleen: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST