> From: "Michel Py" <michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Needless to say, the real-time taken for this process to complete
>> - i.e. for routes to a particular destination to stabilize, after a
>> topology change which affects some subset of them - is dominated by
>> the speed-of-light transmission delays across the Internet fabric. You
>> can make the speed of your processors infinite and it wqwon't make
>> much of a difference.
> The past stability issues in BGP have little to do with latency and
> everything to do with processing power and bandwidth available to
> propagate updates.
The past stability issues had a number of causes, including protocol
implementation issues, IIRC.
In any event, I was speaking of the present/future, not the past. Yes, *in
the past*, processing power and bandwidth limits were an *additional* issue.
However, that was in the past - *now*, the principal term in stabilization
time is propogation delay.
> In other words, it does not make any difference in the real world if
> you're using a 150ms oceanic cable or a 800ms geosynchronous satlink as
> long as the pipe is big enough and there are enough horses under the
> hood.
If you think there aren't still stability issues, why don't you try getting
rid of all the BGP dampening stuff, then? Have any major ISP's out there done
that?
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf