IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: RTGWG minutes IETF98

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Tue, 18 April 2017 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4786D126C2F for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BO13l6yjfFJB for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A35DC128D44 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1611; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1492476969; x=1493686569; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=RJ3DtG/YQF2uYlHp8bUNtpkCfCmtPDDP2LrNvTy+5og=; b=Wys59XaLQNmuuj4abiOIn2vBuhFsJ5+iEVqvuCZfR7Y5X8Zius8r42jA 0k/PdvLbB/liFt6qO0QN5vupP96gtQJPL0EYGqnFA6TwlKoz0MjC89ok/ tIPqt/rSWCEzNMLKsQ8a5jr05iKQnpQuiCZ//7u2bfenABc9jn8UtyEr/ k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AYAQDZY/VY/5xdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBgygrYYELB410kV+VX4IPIQuFeAKEBT8YAQIBAQEBAQEBayiFFQEBAQEDAQE4NAsMBAIBCBEEAQEfCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCIoPDq0WiyEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYZShHWKPAWdGwGHA4tYggiFMIoXiGmLIAEfOIEFYxVEhGYcgWN1iA6BDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,217,1488844800"; d="scan'208";a="413093624"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Apr 2017 00:56:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v3I0u8pb008487 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:56:08 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:56:08 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com ([173.36.7.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:56:07 -0500
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: RE: RTGWG minutes IETF98
Thread-Topic: RTGWG minutes IETF98
Thread-Index: AQHStKrxPZh9YFJAGky1ljoTrEjPlqHKUZ8g
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:56:07 +0000
Message-ID: <9b018c290f1c4d6196006f0fc0ae05a7@XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com>
References: <B36D1917-D933-4756-B70F-FEBCC1EB9BA0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <B36D1917-D933-4756-B70F-FEBCC1EB9BA0@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.71.84]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/2rdvhQdBqDqCKAqw7GNRkio8pPQ>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 00:56:11 -0000

In regards to the discussion regarding " draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement" I am quoted as saying:

" Les: most of the analysis that I am aware of -
the largest contributor is the control plane."

In actuality what I said (or at least intended to say :-) ) was that the largest contributor is the data plane (NOT the control plane).

The point of the exchange between Bruno and myself was to emphaisze the point that demonstrating the real world benefits of the standardized backoff algorithm should include cases where forwarding plane update speeds are different on different nodes in the topology. It is possible that better synchronization of  the control plane execution times (which is what use of a consistent backoff algorithm is likely to provide) may not mean much in cases where forwarding plane update speeds are significantly different on different nodes and/or when forwarding plane update speeds consume much more time than the control plane SPF/RIB updates. The latter case is quite common.

   Les


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:09 PM
> To: RTGWG
> Cc: rtgwg-chairs
> Subject: RTGWG minutes IETF98
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The minutes have been published at:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-98-rtgwg/
> Please provide your comments.
> 
> Thanks!
> Jeff & Chris
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email