Re: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-03

[Paul Jakma <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, [e-mail] wrote:

> Any recommendation on the above point?

I don't I'm afraid :). I don't think differing values between peers 
hurt though.

> From your above statement, I understand that the draft only 
> deprecate the 2 default values defined in RFC 4271. Hence the 
> following RFC 4271 text is still applicable: " Since fast 
> convergence is needed within an autonomous system, either (a) the 
> MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for internal peers SHOULD 
> be shorter than the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for 
> external peers, or (b) the procedure describe in this section 
> SHOULD NOT apply to routes sent to internal peers."

It should yes.

> In that case, IMHO, the draft sentence " The appropriate choice of
> default values is left to the discretion of implementors." Should be
> augmented with "but as per RFC 4271 default value should be chosen lower
> for iBGP peer than for eBGP peer".

The draft as it is tries very hard to not prescribe anything except 
to remove the default values. Going beyond that likely only leads to 
an argument. ;)

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma  [e-mail]  twitter: @pjakma  PGP: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
of the risks he takes.
 		-- Adlai Stevenson