Return-Path: 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 DF53D120116 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:35:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 fCAQmBYne0mH for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ED51120033 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id i18so43119597pgl.11 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:35:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=Gbe50jwHFBqQTTKRWTy45VCPvcVQQ3Fl8d4Ep6VZRyU=; b=mgPIi12KQWWKQAxo7xcnlfcmtfSNdNr3W0oDhgLop6fccC5Lc1r/2PNOWPhC9HyZA0 CJMvTKhJqx/+/JdzRKjQT4PH1x+XTpkT2vjKbSMoFkf+3cyjktpb0M/Lx5RCBfNuBBUZ Rcv/Bl+sql+AsvzO3tO49LoUwQuZD8T0k+IsYkBD2YjrZe2WZdBy6LFGI/fY8/JTHyCk QNTNLFcbiGdzOC8WBBa6mbbay4J88QaboJYSYIARLWEava2+u4DZTwU+hkfHm4GWHHpV Qjsr71lbkdJPE4VvssH43S0kAF5b8CSq5EIuXOsN3YhiZvHmOrmVQx4wvedv+UkoRxbs LiKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date:to; bh=Gbe50jwHFBqQTTKRWTy45VCPvcVQQ3Fl8d4Ep6VZRyU=; b=CwWtb566MyGmaJ/hQ/2x31R0p3DK/SnDGEPdPcGOuKRkv9j8gtJ2no+sFsSC8blEUO Eq0vtgAYfFqQif8/qQKV4HC1nbTbGQtzxawd1b2xlmmW3thU48oT/KaZcS3PbbJydD3B n3R/sDI+Ol853gQGhor0gCmKm26wd4eNApG43eRUCQhjP1Xotkv8NUM89wAqCSStyQmu i5VVPCDyyUgBkLicsN6QwsynilDJkFq13ab3+9VGvQV7yCS8Cm2niMI4YzbQpOpCCZBJ UKXDkem7QJtYtjry5kC4gpgAioQneyvu5lyhWXNv97v8ZkY28Hn6974dvdOiL1riXiSl oxMA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVsVCkwAM4M7rnxo2b7TrnR4Oe6+d25jo8sueqnHULTot1SA9+t zwFbAmizND1QqAPAA8CR39A7helzsh4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy4dHdSFuTq7Oki+HyrMlCfkO8smSUPaDlLHUjZhrgsWOF2m8neYVewuYu0xK44LZaSU9fTaw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:214e:: with SMTP id a72mr1400736pje.0.1565228122415; Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.122.240] ([66.170.99.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h11sm97994268pfn.120.2019.08.07.18.35.21 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Aug 2019 18:35:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Mahesh Jethanandani Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA58F937-4C50-4295-9127-AA6ED9F55CA4" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) Message-Id: <6092FE2F-1225-4CE9-BDD2-AB943B7275DE@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:35:21 -0700 To: idr@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) Archived-At: Subject: [Idr] Support for damping (Issue #26) X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2019 01:35:25 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CA58F937-4C50-4295-9127-AA6ED9F55CA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Folks, One of the issues that has been opened against the BGP YANG model is the = support for damping. It is documented here = . As it stands, all that the model supports is the notion of = disabling/enabling damping. But many more parameters are needed to = support damping, and there seems to be no commonality between how = different vendors have chosen to support damping.=20 The question to the WG therefore is, what form of damping would the WG = like to see supported. The version in gated, or the one in Cisco IOS-XR, = or Cisco IOS-XE, or Juniper, or Ericsson, etc. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com --Apple-Mail=_CA58F937-4C50-4295-9127-AA6ED9F55CA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi = Folks,

One of the = issues that has been opened against the BGP YANG model is the support = for damping. It is documented here.

As it stands, all that the model supports is the notion of = disabling/enabling damping. But many more parameters are needed to = support damping, and there seems to be no commonality between how = different vendors have chosen to support damping. 

The question to the WG = therefore is, what form of damping would the WG like to see supported. = The version in gated, or the one in Cisco IOS-XR, or Cisco IOS-XE, or = Juniper, or Ericsson, etc.

Thanks.

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com



= --Apple-Mail=_CA58F937-4C50-4295-9127-AA6ED9F55CA4--