Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-bgp-route-oscillation-stop (4/6 to 4/20)

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 16 June 2015 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78CC1ACE6E for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 j6FStmUDBnlb for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A40D41ACE5F for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6300; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434422596; x=1435632196; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dpfhwJC4xiLYO9bAW7lYwjaU08mtSgzJO/zguW3WrdA=; b=Xug9fr8GxphCsfsd5nD7PenCgzlM6nh3wMPS7F1yaU9t4RanyCPrAzWw 4bVpoUQu2swbes28NjLVyi/VlawlzurT7jfB0P9ulV1+Efk37FnoOV42u FjDgwKi9FCw8DAhyffY+vJhlo6a6AB+rEGXjgwfL2v3IQfmKD+Mk2bvJ3 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AlBACKjH9V/5pdJa1RCoJFS4EzBr1+CYdZAoE7OBQBAQEBAQEBgQqEIwEBBHkQAgEIPwcyFBECBAENBYgvzC8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXi0SEKQRZB4QtAQSRB4JUAYtBmBAmg3lvgQNDgQEBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,622,1427760000"; d="scan'208,217";a="3827012"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2015 02:43:16 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5G2hFGN032427 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:43:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.106]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 21:43:15 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, idr wg <idr@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-bgp-route-oscillation-stop (4/6 to 4/20)
Thread-Index: AQHQeCGyLQ45ESD9WkyclUpsOL7Tf52u7aKA
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:43:15 +0000
Message-ID: <D1A5122A.B844F%aretana@cisco.com>
References: <002e01d070ba$275479e0$75fd6da0$@ndzh.com> <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92757D07F7F@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C92757D07F7F@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.253.164]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D1A5122AB844Faretanaciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/qGSeh0IqCHvO8zFbkcbGjhypbrQ>
Cc: "dbrungard@att.com" <dbrungard@att.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-bgp-route-oscillation-stop (4/6 to 4/20)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 02:43:18 -0000

On 4/16/15, 4:45 AM, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>> wrote:

[Author hat on.]

Jie:

Hi!

And one minor comment:

In section 3 and section 6 it says:

“For the sake of scalability the advertisement of multiple paths should be limited to those prefixes which are affected by MED-induced route oscillation in a network carrying a large number of alternate paths.”

How do the RRs or confederation ASBRs identify those prefixes affected by MED-induced oscillation?  Is there some rules or it is operator configuration?

The oscillations are described in rfc3345.  However, the implementation of an automatic mechanism may not be trivial, and it is outside the scope of this document.

Thanks!

Alvaro.