IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till the Fat LSA MAXAGE's

Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> Sat, 06 October 2012 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
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 D2FF521F84F1 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZO4Kof27N65 for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1466B21F84D8 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q96IOlin019581 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Oct 2012 13:24:48 -0500
Received: from EUSAACMS0702.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.98]) by eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) with mapi; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:24:47 -0400
From: Acee Lindem <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>
To: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 14:24:42 -0400
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till the Fat LSA MAXAGE's
Thread-Index: Ac2j790Jx0Z/VCY/SwyEXsggc96xzQ==
Message-ID: <39F56E52-3BF7-45F5-B16D-3BE987F82DEB@ericsson.com>
References: <BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94EA594C5@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94EA594C5@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-106--273988518"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OSPF List <ospf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF WG at IETF 85 - It Ain't Over till the Fat LSA MAXAGE's
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: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:24:50 -0000

Hi Alvaro, 

On Oct 5, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:

> Acee:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I unfortunately won't we able to stay the whole week, so I wanted to give a short opinion on your comment below.

How can you go home early? It is only 1 hour 25 minutes by plane. Who is going to take the minutes ;^)  ?  

> 
> On 10/5/12 9:17 AM, "Acee Lindem" <acee.lindem@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> If time allows, I'd like to lead a general discussion on the direction the WG wishes to take with respect to scaling. We have the TTZ draft on table but some, including myself, are not convinced this is the right direction to improve OSPF scaling. 
> 
> IMHO, starting form a potential solution and backing up to a problem that (maybe) needs to be solved is the wrong approach.  Instead, the discussion should be around what problem(s) we want/need to solve.  Having a clear description of the requirements will allow us to figure out whether TTZ (or any other proposal) fits the bill, or not.

I agree that we should start with use cases and the OSPF dimension(s) which is/are the limiting factor(s). 

Thanks,
Acee 


> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Alvaro.

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status