Subject: RE: ISP failures and site multihoming [Re: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses]

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:09:30 -0800

> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> This I thought was more or less standard. I was talking about
> less than 100ms convergence.

Dude, this requires a keepalive or hello at 10ms intervals and a 25~30
ms rtt. You might need to talk to a guy named Albert Einstein; he wrote
interesting RFCs about the speed of light that, as far as I know, have
not been debunked yet.

Michel.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:20:42 +0200 (EET)

> interesting RFCs about the speed of light that, as far as I know, have

When multi-connecting, such RTT's seem reasonable.

If you need to converge on the global routing table, that's a non-starter 
of course -- but that's one of the main strengths of multi-connecting.  No 
changes to those outside of the ISP.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:25:44 +0100

> changes to those outside of the ISP.

The original comment I made was on IGP though...

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:25:02 +0100

> interesting RFCs about the speed of light that, as far as I know, have

Actually not. Go look at the presentations from the San Diego IETF. I 
think it was in the ISIS-WG. It was based on 'heartbeats' being sent 
and you know that if you have missed X number of packets in Y time the 
link is down. Don't remember all the details. I think it also included 
moving to partial SPF calculations to get this down even further.

- kurtis -