Re: [routing-wg]Draft doc proposing Route Flap Damping Obsolesence

i suggested that the rfd spec be modified, at least to be per-prefix as opposed to prefix+path, to allow the disaster prefixes to be easily detected and damped.

I get the impression from RFC2439 (sec. 4.4.3) that the authors intended it would be optional for the path to be included in the per-route state, so perhaps some vendor pressure to implement the relevant knob? Or am I missing some other aspect of the document? Then the pathological prefixes could be damped by using some "generous" parameters that most prefixes would never reach in even the most severe circumstances. Is that the idea? Rob