Re: [Idr] I-DAction:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A96A21F8CD8 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TBKv3GidHzOS for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFB521F8CC7 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:52:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=3713; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1314129232; x=1315338832; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=jymo2KFRzctWqkVGICX3Dq+240HrC3LaV5OTjHB/uBM=; b=Rp4o1ZPrn1CAYEvRebFfLQq9WNfc0k8Amp5JHihaeqQ3h9Wxqe7Zymvv srPgQS0bolg9Mxjxx/susLldUYCNHnukXkN/XjTmloXMHI/GZWCBM8+fy wmazl7wAYJUp7Dx7z/9LHlFVOWYpzViJN3dY+XxM3TMsgvwobjSwdYchl Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsMAAPoEVE6tJXG+/2dsb2JhbABCmBOPUneBQAEBAQEDAQEBDwEdCjQLDAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKBhcBBgEmHwkIAQEEEwgah1OeEwGfUYVpXwSHYZBOjAI
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,271,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="15819788"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2011 19:53:51 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7NJrpY2001050; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:53:51 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:53:51 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:53:50 -0500
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05BBCB60@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20AA97F0-FF3C-4F27-80A9-B3DAD5FDCDA2@juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-DAction:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
Thread-Index: AcxhspSL01yZhOsoRCaPOEkpFLMS5AAG75tw
References: <20110817183606.4053.38107.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D721F23B7CB6@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> <4E4C4438.2090702@cisco.com> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05B1B438@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D721F23B884C@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05BBC70A@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <20AA97F0-FF3C-4F27-80A9-B3DAD5FDCDA2@juniper.net>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "John Scudder" <jgs@juniper.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Aug 2011 19:53:51.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[6180F3E0:01CC61CE]
Cc: "Robert Raszuk \(raszuk\)" <raszuk@cisco.com>, idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-DAction:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:52:50 -0000

Done. -05 version just got posted.

Cheers,
Rajiv


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder [mailto:jgs@juniper.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:35 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> Cc: Samita Chakrabarti; Robert Raszuk (raszuk); idr@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Idr]
I-DAction:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-
> 04.txt
> 
> Folks,
> 
> The (abbreviated) WGLC has completed -- Rajiv, can you please make the
agreed
> change and update the doc?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --John and Sue
> 
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> 
> > Samita,
> >
> > Sure. We can add a sentence for that whenever we are asked to
publish
> > the next version (prior to publication).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rajiv
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Samita Chakrabarti [mailto:samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:22 PM
> >> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Robert Raszuk (raszuk)
> >> Cc: idr@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [Idr] I-D
> > Action:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-
> >> 04.txt
> >>
> >> Hi Rajiv,
> >>
> >> From the document perspective, I'd like to see this statement in
the
> > draft as
> >> an assumption or suggestion for this change. Thanks for the
> > clarification
> >> Rajiv and Robert!
> >>
> >>
> >> -Samita
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [mailto:rajiva@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:11 PM
> >> To: Robert Raszuk (raszuk); Samita Chakrabarti
> >> Cc: idr@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [Idr] I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-
> >> 04.txt
> >>
> >> Samita,
> >>
> >> No additional latency expected. Thanks.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Rajiv
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Robert Raszuk (raszuk)
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:44 PM
> >>> To: Samita Chakrabarti
> >>> Cc: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); idr@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action:
> >> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-
> >>> 04.txt
> >>>
> >>> Hi Samita,
> >>>
> >>> Allow me to make an observation that today BGP already validates
> >>> reachability to next hops, before considering path with such next
> > hop
> >> to
> >>> be valid and to be eligible for best path selection.
> >>>
> >>> In the light of the above Rajiv's proposal does not introduce any
> >>> additional delay nor does it cause any impact on "bgp
convergence".
> >>>
> >>> The only place which changes for some applications of BGP is the
> > place
> >>> where you validate such next hop liveness/reachabilty. And as this
> > is
> >>> very implementation dependent I think we should not discuss those
> >>> aspects on this mailing list.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> R.
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Rajiv,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a good work clarifying the path-availability check in BGP
> >>>> path selection. Is this document supposed to update RFC 4271
> > section
> >>>> 9.1.2 in general? I wonder, if you have any data or thoughts on
> >>>> whether the additonal check at the data-plane level will add any
> >>>> latency in BGP path selection process and thus have any effect on
> >>>> convergence? A short paragraph on the impact on timing might be
> >>>> useful for implementors as it seems running BFD or any other
> >>>> mechanism to keep an up-to-date information of path-availability
> > at
> >>>> the data-plane will avoid any delay in the path selection
process.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Samita
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr