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

["Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 3:22 PM
> To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Robert Raszuk (raszuk)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: Robert Raszuk (raszuk); Samita Chakrabarti
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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); [e-mail]
> > 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