Re: [mif] AD review of MPVD Architecture

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 17 December 2014 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9881A8781 for <>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pj0Hjq4grzUV for <>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9606B1A0164 for <>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id bj1so17338505pad.9 for <>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LPCFpLDQJsXDCwTzi6MugI57U6rYzqUHkyIOEvUpks4=; b=uG/pRLQb0nDoez0SU/CAV1FwvFTEVCdVJLUffnFOubQ8iKKLlmtWuPjEiNExyrwBJj o1N7mbJPx5qg3ubVHp9TIcro2SzGqMS8WtNXMcXXuoNGjCjkHQfVa6V7kvROd0UWOEDr WmtuFFLtcX3+3hMC/kAqH+nwTNqepufVNI4L7V8C3zd4/LaQmWHiWeENrYdY8+9CHUo+ 4EIplF6HLTJ+KoE7sFWlrIayAVLcK2U3XUBjg2c9hcZMR0uDc9BNpDv+6RVi4AEk+g4n LI4hkg2wjTcMGVpZwRg4/f2kBF6KRcTZ5T0bpTQnyx+RxkYno3ZOJbUFVIu5gNW4f/2L 8eag==
X-Received: by with SMTP id l3mr73573740pdf.86.1418853874896; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6d06:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6d06:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id e2sm4888029pdo.11.2014. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:04:39 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: " List" <>
Subject: Re: [mif] AD review of MPVD Architecture
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:04:37 -0000

On 18/12/2014 04:48, Ted Lemon wrote:

> What's the rationale for the third sentence in the paragraph below?
>    In some network topologies, network infrastructure elements may need
>    to advertise multiple PvDs.  Generally, the details of how this is
>    performed will be defined in companion design documents.  However,
>    where different design choices are possible, the choice that requires
>    a smaller number of packets shall be preferred for efficiency.
> I ask because I think this is DISCUSS fodder: someone is going to want details.   If it's important, let's keep it and defend it.   If it's more of an aside, let's get rid of it.

Good catch, IMHO. I could easily imagine an argument that a smaller
number of packets that for some reason need more complex processing
would actually be less efficient. Let's not invite that argument -
delete the sentence.