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

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Mon, 22 August 2011 18:35 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 C292C21F8B1D for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.683
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.084, 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 Pg7dMh-r-V5N for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A6921F8B84 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=2750; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1314038221; x=1315247821; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=aG9ZsWqBoy3dhGppeYkA7tIMwYlxqHce4gKHV+zG2TY=; b=Eurvta8HAxHbdwkDOZVSea3xIMs9NjiPp0Ms6BBQlO5VTrDFkCS+3w9t RKeGZDwT4NV1qwzH6mmjEcmg9ik/qcowtvOEaTUt4s0JBngvpNV1tmPoh 0S2ASpI4E8eamE15KC3ZplReBCNToqKOCrL2792GZbR8Iez38zwTBSW+p g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIAALmgUk6tJV2c/2dsb2JhbABBmDuPWneBQAEBAQECARIBHQo0CwUHBAIBCBEEAQELBhcBBgFFCQgBAQQBEggah0+WLgGeaIVpXwSHYJBJjAA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,264,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="15404475"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2011 18:37:00 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7MIb0ma024646; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:00 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:37:00 -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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:36:58 -0500
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05BBC70A@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D721F23B884C@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
Thread-Index: AcxdLxZwRlVcsgt/SdePE1crIJ8c9gBVYSUwAAf/EAAAlXETQA==
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>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "Samita Chakrabarti" <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>, "Robert Raszuk (raszuk)" <raszuk@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2011 18:37:00.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A846810:01CC60FA]
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: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: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:35:55 -0000

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