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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

For what it's worth ...

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:38 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alvaro,
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -10 has just been uploaded.
>
>
>
> 2 changes, applying text we discussed in email:
>
> - default timers values are added
>
I balloted No-Objection, supporting Alvaro's Discuss. It's appropriate that
I also say explicitly that I support the resolution you worked out.

That way, your AD doesn't have to be curious about what Spencer is thinking.

About this, anyway.

Spencer

> - 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:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:56 PM
> *To:* DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG;
> [e-mail]; 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, [e-mail] (
> [e-mail]) 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.
>
>