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

• Next message: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Previous message: Christopher Friesen: "why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• In reply to: Christopher Friesen: "why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Next in thread: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Reply: Johannes Erdfelt: "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 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.

-Andi
-
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: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Previous message: Christopher Friesen: "why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• In reply to: Christopher Friesen: "why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Next in thread: Johannes Erdfelt: "Re: why would you want /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/min_delay to not be zero?"
• Reply: Johannes Erdfelt: "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