Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 29 August 2006 21:46 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIBPK-0004gm-4k; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:46:06 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIBPI-0004gh-G9 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:46:04 -0400
Received: from mail2.noc.data.net.uk ([80.68.34.49]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GIBPG-0003PM-Sp for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:46:04 -0400
Received: from 57-99.dsl.data.net.uk ([80.68.57.99] helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by mail2.noc.data.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1GIBPB-0006I0-00 for rtg-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:45:57 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([217.158.132.220] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:46:00 +0100
Message-ID: <048601c6cbb4$80929640$89849ed9@your029b8cecfe>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:45:44 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2006 21:46:00.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[84C01350:01C6CBB4]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 92df29fa99cf13e554b84c8374345c17
Cc: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>, fenner@research.att.com, rtg-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org
Oh, one other thing: can we get these comments out into the CCAMP WG? They can be anonymised through me or Ross, if you like. A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> To: "Acee Lindem" <acee@cisco.com>; <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be> Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; <fenner@research.att.com>; <rtg-dir@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:42 PM Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt > Hi Acee and Dimitri, > > Very much appreciate you reviewing this. > We did get a couple of comments from IS-IS so we have something to think > about. > > See in line (suitably snipped) > >> Since we recently completed a last call of this document in the OSPF WG >> and received no additional comments, I decided to take another look. >> I've also reviewed this document at least twice previously but, judging >> from section 9, with no "useful" comments ;^). > > Oh, is that what the Acknowledgments section is for? > >>> o) the document mentions that the number of mesh groups is limited but >>> potentially (depending on encoding) provides for binary encoding for >>> 2^32-1 groups - how this can be controlled such as to prevent the >>> resulting behaviour you have described >> Actually, the OSPF theoretical limit is much smaller since the new TLV >> can occur at most >> once and the length of a single TLV is limited to 2^16 bytes. However, >> all discussions I've >> had with the authors indicate that deployments will be limited to a small >> number of mesh >> groups (usually 1 and never more than a handful). Is there any reason to >> doubt this? > > Hmmm. > 1. Whenever we say something like that, history proves us wrong. > 2. There is a proposal to use mesh groups for P2MP membership discovery. > Essentially, each P2MP LSP will behave as a mesh group. > (Hint: I want to kill that idea!) > >> There are several ways these could have been advertised but now that >> we've gone this >> long down this path, I don't think we should change it unless there is a >> very good >> reason. >> >>> o) the term "fairly static" is relative to the OSPF refresh timer ? (i >>> would ask to refer to periodicity instead) >> I interpreted this as referring to the author's view on how often an LSR >> will be >> join or leave a mesh group. > > Yeah, that is my take, too. > I really don't like these relativistic statements when they are not > quantified. > It would be best to state it relative to the OSPF refresh timer. > For example: "This mechanism SHOULD NOT be used if LSRs join or leave a > mesh group more frequently than the OSPF refresh timer." > > Thoughts? > > A
- draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Ross Callon
- Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Acee Lindem
- Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Adrian Farrel
- Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Adrian Farrel
- Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-automesh-01.txt Dimitri.Papadimitriou