IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Thu, 06 July 2017 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jhaas@pfrc.org>
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 E45F5131882 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 y91ZW9Mxp4ie for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63408131850 for <idr@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 13:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dresden.attlocal.net (99-59-193-67.lightspeed.livnmi.sbcglobal.net [99.59.193.67]) by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F55B1E333; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B89D6095-B6F5-4A00-B7F6-51F089BD31F0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
In-Reply-To: <4d8bd5d458db4427a72c15a5ae94cda7@XCH-ALN-014.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 16:37:20 -0400
Cc: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <93357697-1F0A-462E-993F-6CDB7693418E@pfrc.org>
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>
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/lSLPvfZ4eLiwWKIZ3jKht1YZfGk>
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 20:37:24 -0000

> On Jul 6, 2017, at 4:22 PM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz) <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.

-- jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email