AD review and progressing: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10

Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2016 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <akatlas@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 D1C3212D52A; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dLn_kytf64DE; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (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 2CDDA12DBF7; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id h19so30972262ywc.0; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=rPPdoo3GQ5DNFxv/Na6kVehyBc21vqMAtrUPphgiQHA=; b=k7saX1doJzsDQZnmIFVrC12pWLLpDZA/RwwYklDq3Habf7oIATtqbxYhRyU55iIKjR II0eUT2psehI28PA4Yt03561JnV+wp/EJzqH4SMNc27VcNUSQRx5bXNXYPr7hViLN1r+ T8ehjmVGxf0wNDUjWfZS4i8RTOf+4+EA5XiWL4pGoy9GMHdq8hRCbHXkjlhfyj87Dx49 aSDyMNxoC6NGFqYhFLu0dWGRRntwd8poLH9Jo3kokevVyiLpzO0WakJUZ8icEQxCRbFE tGxuaPc3a/MEu93g0Ue2FmvKoOgR24TAsqqcqRaC5gZav29zVOUB3wLi1d7Ugebhox2/ rKcw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=rPPdoo3GQ5DNFxv/Na6kVehyBc21vqMAtrUPphgiQHA=; b=QNUewFd9yiXmcMjqpCH1KJ8RBIeEsSv4nOipS+SgGnZ90RaY+sItko3bMLgMqqK+nW 9mngIrCca7xznO01LLYqrFvQsUioZpJWuQFHl8WKdGDXpA1eXF8a7gpYpe/IX5qA+c7V 54rtYkXzeOnXi+JqH2/QassgEByZWsRUli+duml1lZ2qmC1KKqSgKJGnzWOtCSt0exDN zAWlWUM/P4ndCS+ibnCaiZN1y8uoRbRc1NuiVvSPjtkEL4FqxFI+VLgaQDB2rwuqVf9W hAVaBtC1AK6czE5KaqvCacd6UllWtsUhcj/nndNNKU3bLfRAHtlfOCLnITM2JYXWp5/e GWrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJzNjr/N4qDiI9pTI8ez0w9REaYr3Un8ZK3/eOk1uFHuiOFYmbZmkmfXfcPR3FQYkaYFvdrtGn+9O1IVw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.37.218.2 with SMTP id n2mr575276ybf.125.1464039206370; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.13.221.74 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:33:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rcHsoVfXgHLpOryzZQUjXaCBv2UYvVqvMg6pm_0Xk27=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: AD review and progressing: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-10
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07ecd0d54853053389308d"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/jGGy-YV65iQ9K3boNR33M79JiII>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 23 May 2016 21:33:31 -0000

First, I would like to thank Jon, Petr, and Ariff for their work on this
document.  I think it will be very useful for many who are looking at
data-center designs.

Second, I'd like to thank RTGWG for adopting this draft and working to
improve it.  I think it is a better document than it would have been if I
had instead AD-sponsored it.

Finally, I've done my AD review and have no significant comments that
require addressing.  I am forwarding this draft for IETF Last Call and it
is on the telechat for June 16.  I do apologize for the delay; I am a bit
backlogged on drafts.

One minor suggestion is that in Section 8.3, it might be useful to refer to
RFC 5837, which, if implemented, would allow a way to indicate the local
interface an ICMP message was received on while doing IP address
masquerading.   I believe it would solve the issue of "hiding the address
of the entry point into the device".

Thanks,
Alia