Re: [Idr] draft-dickson-idr-second-best-backup-02

Uli Bornhauser <ub@cs.uni-bonn.de> Tue, 18 March 2008 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <idr-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-idr-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3475B28C74A; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.906, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48hs3z5hahOG; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2360028C73D; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F7B28C6C6 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eOWJWel9zR9w for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de (postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de [131.220.8.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A70628C7D6 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-IAI-Env-From: <ub@cs.uni-bonn.de> : [87.78.80.197]
Received: from [192.171.2.2] (xdsl-87-78-80-197.netcologne.de [87.78.80.197]) by postfix.iai.uni-bonn.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0E05C82B; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:21:00 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ub@cs.uni-bonn.de) (envelope-to VARIOUS) (2) (internal use: ta=1, tu=1, te=1, am=P, au=ub)
Message-ID: <47E0404A.4060007@cs.uni-bonn.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:20:58 +0100
From: Uli Bornhauser <ub@cs.uni-bonn.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian Dickson <briand@ca.afilias.info>
References: <20080218113944.DD87728C0F4@core3.amsl.com> <9E974148-E332-45AB-AB80-283A244182D9@muada.com> <47C3277E.5060502@ca.afilias.info> <47CE34D6.9080600@ca.afilias.info> <47DF8466.8090203@cs.uni-bonn.de> <47DFE2B6.1030409@ca.afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <47DFE2B6.1030409@ca.afilias.info>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050305090504080502080509"
Cc: idr <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-dickson-idr-second-best-backup-02
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: idr-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: idr-bounces@ietf.org

Hello Brian,

Brian Dickson schrieb:
> Uli Bornhauser wrote:
>> However, right after that you wrote that step c) must remove all 
>> SECOND_BEST paths. Well, from my point of view, this does not fit to 
>> what you wrote above. Can you explain me what you mean at this point?
>>
>
> What that statement is meant for, is an explanation for *why* there is 
> the need to repeat the step if only SECOND_BESTs remain (or to 
> rephrase in the presence of N'th-bests, if no "best" paths remain).
> Which is, that there *must* be a path selected, which was a received 
> "best" path, in order to proceed to the next step, or to terminate the 
> path selection (i.e. because only one path remains, and it is a 
> received "best" path).
>
> Perhaps a better way to word it would be, "must have removed all...".
I guess it would be the best to remove this comment at this point. It 
should also be OK if the SECOND_BEST paths are removed after step d), 
e), or f).
>> I attach an extended example based on your ones where the 
>> announcement of two signaling paths does not work anymore. It would 
>> require that the first, second, and third best is announced. This 
>> example can be extended for each static number of paths which are 
>> announced by your approach. Thus, to avoid oscillation certainly, a 
>> dynamic number of paths must be announceable, for example as 
>> described in the walton-draft.
>>
>
> Thank you, that is a very helpful example. Would it be alright if I 
> use it in the draft?
Yes indeed, the intention of the example was to clarify the problem, 
this also holds in a draft.

Another question for the case that covers n paths: Do you want to 
announce the information on each path whether it is the, best, second 
best, third best, ...?
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
Regards

Uli

-- 
______________________________________________________________
Uli Bornhauser                University of Bonn
                              Institute of Computer Science IV
Email: ub@cs.uni-bonn.de      Roemerstr. 164
Phone: +49 (228) 73 - 4550    D - 53117 Bonn
Fax:   +49 (228) 73 - 4571    Germany

_______________________________________________
Idr mailing list
Idr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr