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

Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com> Wed, 24 August 2011 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.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 E738821F8BB9 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 kFWn1NM7W3Fr for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2890E21F8BC5 for <idr@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p7OHqNch026660; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:52:24 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.165]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:52:17 -0400
From: Samita Chakrabarti <samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com>
To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:52:17 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-DAction:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
Thread-Index: Acxh0rtD4ZPxomCqQveoXrTXYN6+oQAs1n2Q
Message-ID: <16D60F43CA0B724F8052D7E9323565D7243F2270CD@EUSAACMS0715.eamcs.ericsson.se>
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> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05BBC70A@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <20AA97F0-FF3C-4F27-80A9-B3DAD5FDCDA2@juniper.net> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05BBCB60@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com> <608DB021-EF9B-4E12-A716-7F84B3AF5B95@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <608DB021-EF9B-4E12-A716-7F84B3AF5B95@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "Robert Raszuk \(raszuk\)" <raszuk@cisco.com>, "idr@ietf.org List" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-DAction: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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:51:17 -0000

 


>Samita, can you please check that the change addresses your concern?
>
> --John

Section 4 (Conclusion) added a line on the expectation on the convergence.
Looks fine to me.

Thanks,
-Samita



On Aug 23, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:

> 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
>