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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 March 2018 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.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 4711512DA08; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 iC9BLKoCLcF3; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22b.google.com (mail-yb0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93E0E12708C; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id d13-v6so192957ybc.3; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o0iYbZu2Z1/lvaNmZ90qwE9DFhUP6iFdEHsaQ4vGyJ4=; b=gPnn5pYNZ2ZkYXEvEVZJ5v6ECAoXZ6raNun0/9g9rEyTK+UQgZOcQNEGZAIo4DUv8A S3ZaugBU/NaF+VbXy5iFT/7cTFxiUpcveMfADHDtYA4NZ08TAx7zhzJU8oH6Vcv3pgku 5z2WtmucSL+L7Chp7ErCYZLR2jlLzQcBgcqzTFfBj9VEaGxaorOn8/KY5kqkKzTVcEiy yduPBtHLV8C1rGIVQJmj12Mazrf6LlZm2jX5YCCgx/9N8EPxI/kbOxpzj0/hES5ZK1Jf 77szRs0isI92Ox2vCTHRXuKcndASDP8hHWIjXpFmW9JG4XuOei9588XbdHQfQZoHZF8P AqKQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o0iYbZu2Z1/lvaNmZ90qwE9DFhUP6iFdEHsaQ4vGyJ4=; b=QvoQbghZQvoy8o4eXlNqWJfYKUdtpu09rfAJOQ3fgi0d6VOfqkdB6lJC7HvjAQd+Lx cM6uhOy0cXDVIAMG2zyXIznPiIqKd0AwofOQ83B1+8+8k4+OSGOFRjGs4ZMIdVByOmTk GaCv7763SAtJvF3lCGlmokAjmV/ULmgNpfn9i4uYgEIZ4tne7zkjChCJD4cGAsJ6lPBh FerOSwMvzg9YfHZRv3HfTLIukpr9gY1a06GSjQ12Ug2ZipTUb5xzjtHM7viukv6OtNCH iGyvEXFzAKmHkyBwMSXAsB0okYVyb6eHFcmlrvhf6eWdFaXr3IsgpIUBgxqY7GAuBEHG hdCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FRNIPKshLwIQDn6p89LNEeYoufwXYsKsf9TUzHKUG5f8DRPVCr 5YVAPEu1tV+8gqBGZIqVend6ToxT/XmDclRGMJU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtqSGB+cDCIlSJYZF0RB6TS0RKDqgCQSRJwWGbIGlSPRyZohvO6XlfnA7aEXUr3gW7n3uH+VyFwegPzmwFjqTM=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1e44:: with SMTP id e65-v6mr1008953ybe.221.1521471940487; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a25:6b4d:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 08:05:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <13166_1521466715_5AAFBD5B_13166_266_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A479DBE51@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:05:40 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-cJ6j9Qi1amNvTf7nL43NjMZC==0sdAoYgN57PkgKYWMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: Bruno Decraene <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "Martin Vigoureux (martin.vigoureux@nokia.com)" <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c709f0567c54af5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/EqcAefShl_bqd71LWgQdPTJigWU>
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 15:05:46 -0000

For what it's worth ...

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:38 PM, <bruno.decraene@orange.com>; 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: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 (
> 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.
>
>