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

John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net> Tue, 23 August 2011 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <jgs@juniper.net>
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 39E1621F8C43 for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.583
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, 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 i-bhGeOwmG6e for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5875321F8C40 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTlPxnVSC0MORtgNYsMD3u/U0+Fd1hBnm@postini.com; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:29:53 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::88f9:77fd:dfc:4d51%11]) with mapi; Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:34:51 -0700
From: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:34:51 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Idr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-idr-bgp-bestpath-selection-criteria-04.txt
Thread-Index: AcxhspSL01yZhOsoRCaPOEkpFLMS5A==
Message-ID: <20AA97F0-FF3C-4F27-80A9-B3DAD5FDCDA2@juniper.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C05BBC70A@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
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" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:28:45 -0000

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