IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05

Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Wed, 16 January 2019 01:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F0A130FD3 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:45:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.254
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 JiyCSV5ai-CV for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE7D5130DD6 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:45:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0G1VosO004581 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:45:49 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=oYfLxuH09H4nK7aevFPn+mua7XwYM7vjCCf41rnMhdE=; b=0EimgUu9M0709kLaBRq66XbklHRhk0lghe1r7ICGnO/sy/UnYpgSdfvVh4TGzUVCy2mf JTrfpTdb3EwDsI2+qz+xAvOWGWVT5QARPrMGFHFzgyi5vWwXP/js0i7wShmqtVYbJJns DqWeGdO43/rfBb5qCSFF/G4Uy09IMgx6D27IqwuLYqBW+8xvOlkptw/nRg77xYzLHd5u PqmUkfJLMOzotfEregC178YXyyUIIoRfcGfdeHZOphcjGlEgCOHR0N6dED7iT8Mc4OKB mPM4x/2fJKh5SN0kNNJLQ4YE4Ispqyc06umRTCMB0sQrLt/8O98lcYjCWaLN5NJUzfnt Kw==
Received: from nam01-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01lp2053.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.33.53]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2q1shwg3ms-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <int-area@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 17:45:49 -0800
Received: from BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.252.26) by BYAPR05MB5160.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.177.231.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1537.20; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:45:46 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7598:d648:d84f:9304]) by BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7598:d648:d84f:9304%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1537.018; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:45:46 +0000
From: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05
Thread-Index: AdStPTIXHWz75USTTH+Xb/NJwCgycQ==
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:45:46 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR05MB42457BE58E12E1FC835D9A89AE820@BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.1.0.61
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB5160; 6:MFNbKptuVt6XL+ZUTqZXvdkoVTV1EXZg+s7dJG2LV1WGjUOnz0dLLczPGrzo//ZYWOAK50rEESoicO7TzTP8NLtidt/fMXDztgVKk+1bCx0FcP+dwZcrnNHeGgfAirsaLo+tdz9qa3QWWlKR2BzoSDaTxzjfkcAJyqGelHoW22S83jqNp8OZVQMBQ2lT3OubWZyQa4DOYsX+kFrwI6YYC1QwaXYqHCwBR2dZHZO19X6vE/OY3ysspWaqnJTJCs6Ne++DtTd1tO8O38B19CtW9sryLIZFIs5S8u667awSrIzgsIAO8SwlCjftTQ3bKrIkn89nzgCL7aRAy2FkFCJmAIyH7qYrV2+LTGGVnMzTLtB91r5ptKCEnxa7zVEKLRrJ8X+byzgOy7pb36gT7pzJS6jMVvgfBff9JT97EwFc35ZegS70pWeMoBinebDUHLr1hsRfjh0YfQMpiEbo/166EQ==; 5:vgYnPfzh1Q7+QK6tDiPei5yCn2H0uQte1K2ymP9DHDvrBnIsERfF2VcLDhZdahAcrooLandPlybj+kKCOQpOHxuJCfmlSSaVF9+BmUbbIS7/JOS7eeOFOxCYK/6VeaUg1wsua+cqEiLpdHXZPL+2dGCxtNnzzD0fdUiDf/5/2JY8XFvUYqIvC9r8u3A8A3ccQnLZnChV7OJ4FyWdFP5c2Q==; 7:wiqbUP6amlNPuGYO2Ohrh/n5xVPnouE1qWqMo/wF/R70IoGn567VCn0rDKdXbz88U2rQQoJ9GefWBOQ4q2XWd0/OArWIA7+4C8XBobFzQi3eyimQkPMVAtlzjQyylPuGq4P4hAjq9I0DEFz6oV7SCQ==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d994dabe-eca0-40ab-a4e4-08d67b545597
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600109)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB5160;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB5160:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB5160D1B4BFD6EE93F4ECE061AE820@BYAPR05MB5160.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 091949432C
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(136003)(366004)(39860400002)(376002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(6246003)(74316002)(81156014)(5660300001)(102836004)(229853002)(7736002)(305945005)(68736007)(316002)(3846002)(6506007)(81166006)(6116002)(99286004)(476003)(14454004)(8936002)(2351001)(486006)(86362001)(2906002)(186003)(106356001)(2501003)(7696005)(26005)(9686003)(71200400001)(478600001)(66066001)(4744005)(105586002)(8676002)(256004)(25786009)(5640700003)(6916009)(6436002)(55016002)(71190400001)(33656002)(53936002)(97736004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB5160; H:BYAPR05MB4245.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: nU6u2WFQ5fcEICtB5kgzL5y2RP04co9cNLLMcwUVFotX1UI0t4XXEnd8419s9qXKteun0UWoOfSNdF8FX40xK4tbmsNilsTu8ugq0kCGGPokkSLZAS1WsZgB7C6XPfRn/4WeH/TrkK3ZRlK71IbXg5xwMrj4I/udbxI04ptK8xMaQZgF6O+LBCLPPjKKFqJ3Mg3fb54raSih6TgaLGYmPvML+UP0wTviYxmexRvVS5fxkcilMK5Shj+fO87FDn7L3YqgMgzQvU0gQqx1OLyr7F2ub9U7CelnKWbBbqsKo49+Jd3YEmTOuGc3izIAftg/x2z940TfI+kslBceNcoyvQRMC3EKeJ8HmxA4s7DrmDlsQcZ74l2XzDecftPY78OUnZRa7kEu2kBAxjPdfBnn2rDgssT+9m7thB2mZZMskv0=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d994dabe-eca0-40ab-a4e4-08d67b545597
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Jan 2019 01:45:46.1433 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB5160
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-15_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=640 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901160010
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/1MS9tF1bc4EFr_jumCdVK0SuQWg>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] WGLC on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-05
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 01:45:53 -0000

Joel,

Good point. Section 4.4 talks about how load-balancing causes load-balancers to behave badly. In a sense, ECMP just another kind of load-balancing. So, I can add a short section after 4.4 demonstrating how the same problem can impact ECMP.

                                   Ron


> 
> If the authors make further additions, adding a mention of ECMP as a
> particular case of stateless load balancers might further improve the
> document.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
***********************************

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email