commit confirmed is such a life-saver. I ran a production network which spanned multiple continents and even though I probably only ever actually needed commit confirmed a single digit number of times, the fact that it was there made every change I did 99% less stressful. I knew that even if I made a mistake, all I had to do was wait 5-10 minutes and it would all revert.
Compare this to my cisco/foundry/other experience where I would delay changes until I was in the office (physically colocated with main routers) or calling people to be onsite for what was 99% of the time an innocuous change. The stress of it led to me deferring changes or just skipping them entirely which led to more issues/stress/etc.
I'm really not sure there is a single software feature which improved my life as much as "commit confirmed"
So instead of one ripple across your BGP network, you have two as it rollsback the change?
The problem is that the state in routing tables isn't stored in a single location, it's dynamically built over time. Breaking a single router in the wrong way can break the state, and there's no rollback of that state
> So instead of one ripple across your BGP network, you have two as it rollsback the change?
It's possible, it depends on what the nature of the change is. If you use super short commit confirmed intervals (commit confirmed 1) then yes you can cause a situation where you revert a "good" commit and cause a second disturbance. You need to intelligently reason about commit confirmed times to consider this when you're making such changes.
Compare this to my cisco/foundry/other experience where I would delay changes until I was in the office (physically colocated with main routers) or calling people to be onsite for what was 99% of the time an innocuous change. The stress of it led to me deferring changes or just skipping them entirely which led to more issues/stress/etc.
I'm really not sure there is a single software feature which improved my life as much as "commit confirmed"