Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft
Russ White <russw@riw.us> Sun, 24 March 2013 12:30 UTC
Return-Path: <russw@riw.us>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BC221F8D23 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qvyzSnRVcPkw for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from da31.namelessnet.net (da31.namelessnet.net [74.124.205.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B7321F8D20 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-098-122-147-095.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.147.95] helo=[192.168.100.52]) by da31.namelessnet.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <russw@riw.us>) id 1UJk4e-00037E-0C; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:30:56 -0700
Message-ID: <514EF208.4020303@riw.us>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 08:31:04 -0400
From: Russ White <russw@riw.us>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)" <andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CD71DA33.1AFA5%andrew.dolganow@alcatel-lucent.com>, <514DC1BA.3090600@riw.us> <C4610FC0-77B1-43D5-9220-539D817015F5@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4610FC0-77B1-43D5-9220-539D817015F5@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner
Cc: "ospf@ietf.org" <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 12:30:58 -0000
> BFD was, among others, design for that. Removing it is bot an option in my opinion. Operators tell us vendors to make cost-effective solutions, then request functionality extensions that make control plane more complex because they try yo support today's best functionality without the tools invented for this. I think expanding OSPF to support what we can do already is not the right thing to do. My impression of this draft is that it's not about fast down detection (as BFD is), but asymmetric discovery speed to improve efficiency. Can you point me to the place in the BFD draft that covers this capability? The question isn't whether or not BFD can do this particular thing --the questions are: 1. Is this a reasonable thing to want to do? 2. Should we extend OSPF to do it? This isn't the BFD working group (?). :-) Russ
- [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Minto Jeyananth
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Acee Lindem
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Madhukar Anand (anandmkr)
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Minto Jeyananth
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Madhukar Anand (anandmkr)
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Russ White
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Dolganow, Andrew (Andrew)
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Russ White
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Anton Smirnov
- Re: [OSPF] Asymmetric OSPF Hold Timer draft Acee Lindem