[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

carrier comparison

Subject: carrier comparison
From: mark.tinka at seacom.mu (Mark Tinka)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:21:46 +0200
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Friday, February 07, 2014 04:49:09 PM Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> Based on my understanding on BFD, it will not help you...
> BFD will detect the direct connected port being down
> quicker and force the BGP session down, (faster than the
> time  BGP session timers take to determine something is
> broken)

You would also need your provider to support BFD (and by 
support I mostly mean willing to run, as modern gear today 
is technically capable).

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140207/b2db7fc3/attachment.bin>

References:
- carrier comparison
  - From: maillist at webjogger.net (Adam Greene)
- carrier comparison
  - From: olivier.benghozi at wifirst.fr (Olivier Benghozi)
- carrier comparison
  - From: faisal at snappytelecom.net (Faisal Imtiaz)

Prev by Date: GEO location issue with google
Next by Date: Need trusted NTP Sources
Previous by thread: carrier comparison
Next by thread: carrier comparison
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread