RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

<bruno.decraene@orange.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 13:38 UTC

Return-Path: <bruno.decraene@orange.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 27AF61242F5; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TGyYQ-bE3_9M; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:38:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta240.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED27E12778D; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id ABA2712021F; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:38:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.13]) by opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 862A3180075; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:38:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e92a:c932:907e:8f06]) by OPEXCLILM6D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::54f9:a6c3:c013:cbc7%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:38:35 +0100
From: <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo@ietf.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>, "Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com)" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTvsDtoB6odzz08E+5yeYuKF/KdqPXj44A
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:38:34 +0000
Message-ID: <13166_1521466715_5AAFBD5B_13166_266_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A479DBE51@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <151910656889.29750.3686523183770186132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8500_1519728222_5A95365E_8500_4_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A479AF876@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAMMESsyKxXQ6To=d4SnUsoR7ivhHtJREh2Z=6rGzTUDoPBg6pg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESsyKxXQ6To=d4SnUsoR7ivhHtJREh2Z=6rGzTUDoPBg6pg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A479DBE51OPEXCLILM21corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/BuUkyIrBFXf4h9tabwfhW-iRlAs>
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 13:38:39 -0000

Alvaro,



Thanks.

-10 has just been uploaded.



2 changes, applying text we discussed in email:

- default timers values are added

- slightly reworded definition of “Routing table computation”



Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-10

Thanks for your review
--Bruno

From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:56 PM
To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri
Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On February 27, 2018 at 10:43:42 AM, bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com> (bruno.decraene@orange.com<mailto:bruno.decraene@orange.com>) wrote:

Bruno:

Hi!

You and I have a significant difference in opinion related to what can be expected of a typical network operator.  In short, I don’t think that we can expect the same from that typical operator as we can from someone like you.  [To avoid confusion: this is a compliment! :-) ]

I will reply on the Responsible AD for any changes that may be needed from my comments.

I will clear my DISCUSS if the text you proposed below is included in the draft.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

...
> Back to the point of this DISCUSS, the importance of consistent values is
> clear! Based on the experience of existing implementations, please specify
> "safe" default values.

[Bruno] Ok.
First of all, I do think that the "best" default are likely to change over time (as both CPU power and customer requirements increase). Over the last 15+ years, this has already happened on some implementations https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/ip-routing/211432-Change-of-Default-OSPF-and-IS-IS-SPF-and.html Also for the BGP protocol, this also happened for BGP Route Flap dampening parameters (cf RFC 2439 & 7196). They are also likely to be dependent of the segment market (e.g. backbone vs backhaul vs "pre-aggregation").

I would propose the following addition:
NEW:
If this SPF backoff algorithm is enabled by default, then in order to have consistent SPF delays between implementations with default configuration, the following default values SHOULD be implemented:
INITIAL_SPF_DELAY 50 ms, SHORT_SPF_DELAY 200ms, LONG_SPF_DELAY: 5 000ms, TIME_TO_LEARN_INTERVAL 500ms, HOLDDOWN_INTERVAL 10 000ms.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.