Re: [bmwg] Adoption of Router/Basic BGP Convergence Drafts

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

Ok Ilya, thanks for the update.
BMWG will postpone adoption your draft at this time.

If anyone has suggestions for Ilya, I'm sure they
will be appreciated.

regards,
Al
bmwg chair

At 10:55 AM 7/2/2012, Ilya Varlashkin wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
         boundary="----=_NextPart_000_010A_01CD5873.7AEAE470"
Content-Language: en-gb

Hello all,
 
I’ve got stuck with my draft – the traffic generator/protocol simulator has serious issues when I need to simulate same exit/border router reachable via multiple ports, this severely limit type of test scenarios that can be simulated. The problem #1 is that BGP session cannot be transferred from one port to another, so primary path failure results in primary BGP session going down. The second issue is with trying to work around #1 – when IGP (in my case it was ISIS) on two ports advertises same node/router, which I thought I could use as next-hop in BGP updates without actually establishing session to it from DUT, the two ports advertised actually two independent routers sharing most of information but having different (and ever increasing) Sequence Number. The ever increasing Sequence Number caused DUT to run new SPF right after previous one finished, which in turn kicked up exponential back-off resulting in much slower convergence and thus diminishing usefulness of the tests.
 
I’m now trying to figure out alternative setup that would involve additional real routers, but need to see if results will be meaningful.
 
Based on this I’d ask not to adopt my draft at this moment as WG item.
 
/iLya
 
From: [e-mail] [ mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Al Morton
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:25 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [bmwg] Adoption of Router/Basic BGP Convergence Drafts
 
BMWG,

We (still) have a charter item on BGP Convergence:
Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology to IESG Review (overdue)

Over the last year or so, we've discussed two drafts that
will help to satisfy the milestone.  We've also seen some results of
implementation and testing at our last face2face session.

The two drafts are:

Convergence benchmarking on contemporary routers
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-varlashkin-router-conv-bench-00.txt" rel="nofollow"> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-varlashkin-router-conv-bench-00.txt

Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data Plane Convergence

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-papneja-bgp-basic-dp-convergence-03" rel="nofollow">
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-papneja-bgp-basic-dp-convergence-03

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-papneja-bgp-basic-dp-convergence-03" rel="nofollow">
 

The combination of these drafts address both the milestone and
issues with non-convergence path restoration that has come-up
in IESG comments in the past.

Therefore, I now ask whether the working group members feel we
should adopt these as WG drafts. So:

1. Please Read the Drafts by July 19th, 2012.

2. Respond with your review, and

3. give your impressions on whether they are sufficiently clear in their
approach and direction, such that we can complete them in a timely
fashion in the working group.

That's it!

regards,
Al
bmwg chair
_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[e-mail]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg" rel="nofollow"> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg