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

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