IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt

"Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com> Thu, 06 July 2017 20:40 UTC

Return-Path: <jheitz@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 9F035131962 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UM6FveZGMCA5 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F59A13195E for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1499373642; x=1500583242; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=gKOzAzrhAsb9SsB2gxi7sTRXqZWu6nP3rWOyYp9QlYo=; b=mu/1kLwUIk1+W1mHqXcF7QymYJBfsyy90um9lP7PvL4sjcyS9InMSjhm TCehgG+7EUBHOqy+4atpPr4lnViQOTB9cmorY2PHT747GsaAotrczyx5m lYl3QE0bv4ImgxltU/pxdQ4lYxMUe9RBbOXS+6JfuEoYmTpY/CYz11e7F Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CnAAD9nl5Z/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgm9qY4ERB44CkWeQV4UsghGGHAKDMT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFGAEBAQEDLUwQAgEIDgMEAQEoBzIUCQgCBA4FCIlDZLMdizQBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdgyeDTIFhgySFIIU+BZcuh2ECk3uSJ5U3AR84gQp1FYdfdodlgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.40,319,1496102400"; d="scan'208,217";a="446305789"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jul 2017 20:40:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (xch-rcd-015.cisco.com [173.37.102.25]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v66Keeap004897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:40:40 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com (173.36.7.24) by XCH-RCD-015.cisco.com (173.37.102.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:40:39 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) by XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com ([173.36.7.24]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 15:40:39 -0500
From: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
CC: idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHS9BUunfHRezzCokubhqS6qWLW+qJCmLwAgAADHACAAAV9AIAAEJgAgAAELwCAACXgAIAABdiAgAAGlwCAAAS/gIAAAluAgAADsICAAAI9gIAABIMAgAAG2ACAANELAIAAVbOAgAGER4CAABuWgIAACY6A///raUCAAL0bAP//txnAgAEO71CAAFt5AP//rHNg
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:40:39 +0000
Message-ID: <6cd082b1a0334d498d84b521408f0cbf@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
References: <20170703175308.hembxkplaniz66wb@Vurt.local> <m2van9z3jp.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC8tPVD20SJ60h-=NGbPMG3Fae2a0TY5rMFb=EnN7H-C6Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2o9t1z1hj.wl-randy@psg.com> <CACWOCC_bQitHeR9tHc5tPsXmoSDDLQH764equTAHrP854fYh-A@mail.gmail.com> <BF65C4DC-D2F5-41AF-8454-D43B403E328B@juniper.net> <CACWOCC9cmz7ARnWNowCCEu3Rt_NiyuWgJMZ3pWfmxZ_BO8Ovjw@mail.gmail.com> <292534ED-98BC-49A0-82A2-45B6688F851D@juniper.net> <CACWOCC_KTzJLQAJf_j4ZqM1oJSFq9JcyT7aAPLGf3+2Ess7BBA@mail.gmail.com> <09BFF794-6899-4DA5-8EF5-DDF86513BFBA@pfrc.org> <20170704104840.mg5bflnmmjlv4jbi@Vurt.local> <20C02BA3-5C13-46FB-AFE8-85D61E469EA1@juniper.net> <CA+b+ERmJRbhwa5Eut4+KwxqmAcaBM3fSvL1-zjrxBfZur6QxjA@mail.gmail.com> <1FD8FAE9-E6BF-4C48-BCD6-12C1012827E2@juniper.net> <CA+b+ER=eYJN1HXa+buCB7kR+Byt0iWH6-a20VJ5DjzbQEJrhKQ@mail.gmail.com> <d9d07382674b4ea5b513a3608b6bd85a@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <F55CBE76-FD1D-462D-993A-F2E88E9F3184@juniper.net> <696fbda3aa2b4af9b0fc8f4757e7b541@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <4d8bd5d458db4427a72c15a5ae94cda7@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com> <93357697-1F0A-462E-993F-6CDB7693418E@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <93357697-1F0A-462E-993F-6CDB7693418E@pfrc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.43.213]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6cd082b1a0334d498d84b521408f0cbfXCHALN014ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/Tg4AHm8aczwfn3rma9XW2uwsPNA>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:40:47 -0000

From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:jhaas@pfrc.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com>
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>; idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-rs-bfd-03.txt


On Jul 6, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <jheitz@cisco.com<mailto:jheitz@cisco.com>> wrote:

The draft proposes to filter paths from best-path selection
based upon nexthop reachability.

This looks more like a new ORF type than a SAFI.
SAFI is for one-to-many information.
ORF is used for peer-to-peer info.
It would certainly make it easier to write the code for it
if it were an ORF type.
Well, 2: one for ReachTell and another for ReachAsk.
Was this considered?

I tend to consider this a bit more like rt-constrain than an ORF.  I accept your comparison for the peer-to-peer being a bit more ORF-like than rt-constrain.

I think my biggest bit of feedback is that ORF seems generally less setup for "chatty" state changes than an rt-constrain like mechanism.  ORF still has a bit of the implication of "do a refresh to change state", even if the results are incremental.

[Jakob] That makes ORF even more apt. When reachability changes, a refresh of the diffs is required.

-- jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email