IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD5D21F8E51 for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.438
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 WxxTNBEy2QBp for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7437F21F8D28 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 03:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3GAr9MY016695; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:53:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.88] (ams-bclaise-8917.cisco.com [10.60.67.88]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3GAqYJ7010891; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:52:45 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <516D2D72.8080202@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:52:34 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
References: <51656616.4070003@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51656616.4070003@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000808090800090306050009"
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:53:14 -0000

Dear all,

My analysis is that the mechanism described in the draft is a local 
load-balancing optimization, which doesn't influence the bits on the wire.

Note that Curtis had a similar concern during the OPSAWG meeting (see 
the minutes 
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-opsawg>),

    Curtis Villamizar: Looks like implementation details, not operational issues.
    Not appropriate here, even as an Informational RFC.  Also has concerns with
    specific approach, which requires configuration.

Therefore, I don't believe that this draft is appropriate for the WG.

Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
> This is a call for working group adoption of
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/.
>
> The authors report that they've incorporated feedback given at
> the IETF 86 meeting, in particular
>    . information model for flow rebalancing
>    . operational considerations
>
> We'll be assessing consensus on 24 April 2013.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Melinda
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email