Re: [Idr] BGP-LS and the like ...

[Eric C Rosen <[e-mail]>]

On 6/26/2018 9:54 AM, Susan Hares wrote:
>
> Eric:
>
> On your questions for #1,  The ARPANET’s original algorithm
>
> Used a “link metric, which was an instantaneous sample rather than an 
> average, was a poor indicator of expected delay on a link as the 
> quantity being sampled fluctuated fairly rapidly at all traffic 
> levels.”  This is a quote from the reference academic paper link below 
> (circa 1989).
>

I am very familiar with this issue about feedback loops in the ARPAnet, 
but I don't understand what it has to do with the draft under discussion.

>
> If you suggest that hints to the buffer algorithm do not cause 
> fluctuations, then provide the discussion on the list that provides 
> this proof.
>

Are we still talking about the prefix-SID attribute draft?  It has 
nothing to do with buffer allocations.  Also, it has no feedback loops.

Or are you talking about the BGP-LS draft?  That draft just describes 
the distribution of information; if you're worried about feeback loops 
created by the use of that information, I think you need to go to the 
LSVR WG.  The BGP-LS stuff has nothing to do with the prefix-SID draft 
though.

> A group of drafts defining this new technology should provide a cogent 
> definition for the administrative boundary of segment routing in 
> either the segment routing drafts.  This SR domain boundary should be 
> detectable by management process.
>
>

Defining the admin boundary of an SR domain would be outside the scope 
of any BGP document.

It would be nice if BGP had a simple way of restricting the distribution 
of attributes and/or communities and/or extended communities and/or 
large communities and/or super-duper communities to specified 
administrative domains.  Unfortunately, it doesn't. But this is a 
long-standing problem that is generally dealt with on an ad hoc basis by 
policy.