excessive rates of bona fide routing updates *can* be a
problem. it's called route flap. and we've got route
flap dampening to reduce the scope of such events
what we've been talking about very recently on this list
is the high rate of withdrawls that have been seen.
specifically, e.g., withdrawls from RouterA to RouterB
for networks that RouterA never announced to RouterB.
this is not a route flap .. it is just a superfluous
withdrawl and causes no operational problems. however,
some folks were tracking the number of withdrawls and
didn't like the large number, so the vendor was informed
and the code was changed. it's a good and appropriate
thing that the behavior was changed, but that doesn't
mean that it was a bug and doesn't mean that it was
causing any problems
/jws
excessive rates of bona fide routing updates *can* be a
problem. it's called route flap. and we've got route
flap dampening to reduce the scope of such events
what we've been talking about very recently on this list
is the high rate of withdrawls that have been seen.
specifically, e.g., withdrawls from RouterA to RouterB
for networks that RouterA never announced to RouterB.
this is not a route flap .. it is just a superfluous
withdrawl and causes no operational problems. however,
some folks were tracking the number of withdrawls and
didn't like the large number, so the vendor was informed
and the code was changed. it's a good and appropriate
thing that the behavior was changed, but that doesn't
mean that it was a bug and doesn't mean that it was
causing any problems
Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see
that we have it installed?
-Hank
Can you specify the bug/fix number for Cisco so we all can check to see
that we have it installed?
I think that the engineering special build number would probably be more
relevant. 
As Ravi is out of cyberspace for a while (everyone
congratulate him when he gets back!), Paul, could you please do the honors?
Thanks,
Tony