RE: Mail regarding draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

That makes sense to me. I will remove the reference.

Thanks,

Stephane

From: Martin Horneffer [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 16:06
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane SCE/IBNF; Mike Shand; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Mail regarding draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Hello Stephane, Mike, and group,

just one comment (see below) since I get to see more and more different networks from the operator's point of view.

Am 11.05.15 um 16:22 schrieb [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>:
4. "   Routers have more and more powerful controlplane and dataplane that
   reduce the Control plane to Forwarding plane overhead during the
   convergence process.  Even if FIB update is still reasonably the
   highest contributor in the convergence time for large network, its
   duration is reducing more and more and may become comparable to
   protocol timers.  This is particular true in small and medium
   networks."

I don't understand what is meant by "may become comparable to protocol timers"? Are you suggesting that the FIB update latency WAS greater than the protocol timers, but has now been reduced to a comparable value?
[SLI] Right, even if it may be not true for all the networks, this tends to be the case

The reference to small and medium networks is also confusing, since in my experience it is actually the small and medium networks which are subject to the LARGEST FIB update times as a result of the deployment of under powered hardware.
[SLI] Yes and no ...
I may say that small/medium networks have less powerful hardware, but also less routes (except badly designed networks :) ). Large network have more powerful hardware but more routes to handle.
This really depends on many corner conditions such as exact choice and age of hardware, network design in term of topology and routing architecture and, of course, size of the network.

While it might be possible for a small or medium sized network with a very clean design, a small number of internal routes, and modern hardware to have a very fast FIB update, there are numerous reasons why this could fail: old hardware or software, network design which includes many parts of the aggregation, access and service generation area in the IGP, and/or routing architectures which for one reason or the other include some service routes in the IGP.
For very large networks on the other hand it will definitely not be possible to keep FIB updates very fast.

IMHO it would be a good idea to remove  the reference to the size of the network. And don't even try to specify which kind of network has shorter or longer FIB update times. Just indicate that depending on size and exact design of a network it MAY have short FIB updates times, but make clear that by no means this is always the case.

Best regards, Martin

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.