Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal
Tony Przygienda <prz@XEBEO.COM> Fri, 08 November 2002 10:20 UTC
Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA12303 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 05:20:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <16.007BA60D@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 5:22:43 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 332856 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 05:22:43 -0500
Received: from 204.192.44.242 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 05:22:43 -0500
Received: (qmail 589 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 10:22:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO xebeo.com) (192.168.2.180) by lxmail.xebeo.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 10:22:42 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020408
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E7E13AAF2F3ED41197C100508BD6A328791993@india_exch.hyderabad.mindspeed.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <3DCB9003.50203@xebeo.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 11:20:51 +0100
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: Tony Przygienda <prz@XEBEO.COM>
Subject: Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Manral, Vishwas wrote: >Hi Dave, > > b) I think we have made it clear that we do not intend to fiddle with the > protocol in the normal case, that is why we have not followed an approach >of > basing the flooding on RTT unlike some other protocols. > >>Actually, flooding based on RTT can certainly be done without >>"fiddling with the protocol" (assuming that you mean a normative change.) >> As long as the packets look right, you can do a whole lot without >>torquing the standard. >> > >I agree and we did ponder over this approach. However from a previous note >of urs, such failures are non-linear, and using the average RTT's prevents >it from responding appropriately to such non-linear storms. Besides there >are some other issues, I could discuss with you if you think the approach is >worth pursuing. > >Thanks, >Vishwas > Last one from me to the IMHO slightly over-excited crowd that tries to protect protocol-implementors and deployments from themselves by giving them gratuitous amounts of soaped rope (aka. congestion notification): There is an Occam's razor to _routing protocol standardization_ (vs. e.g. implementor agreements' or recommendation group): If you can't observe, quantify and prove it based purely on _white-box_ approach, you cannot standardize it! Lots of the stuff you try to do is impossible to prove on an implementation, e.g. Hello priotization/congestion avoidance cannot be proven to work to your desired specs unless you have probes into queues/CPU usage/link-loss of a system. Summa, you cannot standardize it, you can only recommend it via a BCP or maybe informational draft. Compare this discussion to the bashing Naiming got for the proposal of optional time-stamps and hello sequence numbers on ISIS list (albeit it was for my taste a border case) [footnote: e.g. in contrast, Alex's LSA reorigination spread or even timer jitters can be measured and observed so there are certain recommendations that can be 'standardized' but even then they are mostly just BCP]. I personally think any workgroup chair worth his salt will not let you make this congestion avoidance thingy go into anything close to a standards track, maybe informational but even then, I think your stuff will cause possibly more trouble than gain as a working group item in a _protocol standardization_ working group. And a tad more humility would help a long way as well instead of claiming to save the world here, lots of these stuff is research on shaky simulations following deployed reality, I remember learning stuff like hello priotization and much more from simulations and looking at other people's code 1995 or so. And ultimately for all of us, lots of this stuff is known in theory of non-linear control systems since quite a while, just most people get scared by the math on the few first pages. thanks & tony out -- tony
- OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Naidu, Venkata
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Naidu, Venkata
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Mukesh Gupta
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Acee Lindem
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Don Goodspeed
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Naidu, Venkata
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Jeff Parker
- Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Joyal, Daniel R (Daniel)
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manohar Naidu Ellanti
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Dave Katz
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Joel M. Halpern
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Tony Przygienda
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal John Drake
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Jeff Parker
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Tony Przygienda
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Dave Katz
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manohar Naidu Ellanti
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Dave Katz
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Choudhury, Gagan L, ALASO
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Dave Katz
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Manral, Vishwas
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Tony Przygienda
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Rohit Dube
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Acee Lindem
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Choudhury, Gagan L, ALASO
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Dennis Ferguson
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Dave Katz
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Alex Zinin
- Re: OSPF WG Charter Proposal Choudhury, Gagan L, ALASO