IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 18 March 2018 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.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 0D8F9126C0F; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 06:56:42 -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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 z_AQvATvg-I5; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 06:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x244.google.com (mail-oi0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::244]) (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 E2C9C12711A; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 06:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x244.google.com with SMTP id a189so5280615oii.2; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 06:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N7ZcasfPJ1+ljYrBYf4V9zvdMdGN34Nxfs7N/wx4fmg=; b=nSm0zmD9YJyss0wuDzKYUQV5+QdO9nnOEg+67NE9S1v0ejxTNAVX4FZYHZuxjwkXx+ gw3csfve7o5O/riuwm+vQuxgP/B33oijJer/lLktxVCKqclz39NTos8cNqg5raUslY// 8woOC5qxFOkaBUC7BXo92wrg7+g8lVGYFK+XU0di0trB5xypFn8/5W2MjMW33Mf0GxFw LdJtZmUdr1Ho0HgaP+xw7KFiR3VAQkzp+YieVfvngltgV9NVLEzcxJEKdyzia6DvmLPS U+iJGTafghVHZYDqUNW4Vf8XXImfub8dbDR3U4wOQjU1ye7W8c8v5kkuXNSAuj86xZhX y4aA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N7ZcasfPJ1+ljYrBYf4V9zvdMdGN34Nxfs7N/wx4fmg=; b=bQzcRga2khU3AbcxXDUx8ZtAcVodFXZ7B91hLt+XFrf+3sgxG7y/UXD6bbj+F8C700 zwbBvq/TmCnADw/vVRpSKOThOlIjpUlCMNou1hzZT/zxBW9l6WEAUWeKE+kEG5I8YssM 4e9s7RGmbqHxPcQN49FzVOKsSi8JOqz9AjphGNQMwF8rxjjUyR/Ma+tOhOzpbmqsHICr Azxi0LBNTx1VjXxJCnR61gpZ5XD8eZ01hxuSEkSt2cdNJSlG/Y9muq4CeQKmBU9BVGrJ gUNL8vF5Ys8NtP8GjfyZsRUsxaxiZvGCp5lqp7CbcNPkkFroKetPZ2ikmawuhjZAKIls BPUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GFZ0kvwOUj/2NYcYPjjYmNB1Lk2d0bgMB+2EyaqblbNghb8nQX m7yWt7H3GBzqvCPGR19GcVQLwj+tNhOKd6ebAqs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvnzcRBqigymW419SajQPZbiYHivYLhUqqVQqhQ9fX9gKOljbfMMmReCD26uAcY7O9TxdWrCdgpvKJxnB3kQsg=
X-Received: by 10.202.1.199 with SMTP id 190mr5428370oib.80.1521381391312; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 06:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:56:30 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8500_1519728222_5A95365E_8500_4_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A479AF876@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>
X-Mailer: Airmail (467)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 09:56:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMMESsyKxXQ6To=d4SnUsoR7ivhHtJREh2Z=6rGzTUDoPBg6pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
To: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140342c65addd0567b03539"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/WRmJRxWckBbp-yQaylnj06M06o8>
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 13:56:42 -0000

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email