Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc

Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu> Thu, 06 August 2015 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <ghanwani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D271B2A81; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.023
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 EzVqwIT40unS; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c: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 EEC011B2A77; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so4005080wib.0; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4oCnrJOBGjFYYBc2lKkufD/wLDjecFO0Xfwc2Aitdpg=; b=n0IklKNOWMjka7KUECniTgON+WhEWcIdgKffGqWKRAvbBGxsX7uJiHVyGnZxmXoqP1 KHRn9lpve5e4oybNBMpYs36f0KHWaC4X7Y5fTUjS7e1U6CCyPl+jQKkYdWDmhlMwEDYA uW+MRzUjlaUwsCe+pDn45z3F9rkTKmcQ42ERmG+Yu9fJX5bB60W6BHA7G+iZggqN83Wq fRPCiW7DJV+QxJL9hKIQj+9pAUMdvcNmwd+cy2w92lqAyNZLsF/kKHm1X8p0l7kCxKyp lS04LE01JlFX2GITl1uAMIamfj94BAeIPQSbj1NVx36rqd1o9nDuzoRk3NCl+wxPxfL8 fGAQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.206.41 with SMTP id ll9mr1477649wic.88.1438826696667; Wed, 05 Aug 2015 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: ghanwani@gmail.com
Received: by 10.27.83.212 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D1E42E95.A10A4%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
References: <D1E42E95.A10A4%jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:04:56 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EVZzeWlJ9a8XpVbT7AIWLggwcso
Message-ID: <CA+-tSzxO9UG2JZ_-TO7yz0YaUKQWfYDzYhY4-yPboWrULp00-A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RTGWG LC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc
From: Anoop Ghanwani <anoop@alumni.duke.edu>
To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3888225f749051c9af24b
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/qq8q2g4XaCx7_kowIs0VoTST2Mg>
Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc@tools.ietf.org>, rtgwg-chairs <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 02:05:00 -0000

Support.  I have mostly minor comments included below.

Anoop

======


Section 2.3
I had trouble understanding this statement:
>>>

   Operating large-scale infrastructure could be expensive, provided
   that a larger amount of elements will statistically fail more often.

>>>
Is it just trying to say that with a larger number of elements, likelihood
of seeing failures goes up?  Or is it saying something else?

Section 3.2.4
>>

   If a data center network size is small, it is possible to reduce the
   number of switches in Tier-1 or Tier-2 of Clos topology by a power of
   two.

>>
Should this say factor of 2?

Section 4.1
>>

   The major downside of this
   approach is the proprietary nature of such extensions.

>>
The bigger issue is probably limited scalability because of the need for
synchronization between switches at a given tier level where the protocol
is implemented.  Also wastage of ports to implement the inter-chassis
link.  I say that because a standard for this now exists -- 802.1AX DRNI,
so technically, the proprietary nature is no longer a limiting factor.

Section 4.1, para 2
>>

currently the maturity of the protocol

>>
Did you mean lack of maturity?

Section 4.3
>>>

   Application providers and network operators continue

   to also develop new solutions to meet some of the requirements that
   previously have driven large Layer 2 domains.

>>>
Would be good to add a reference.

Section 5.2.1
>>>

 A unique ASN is allocated per each group of Tier-2 devices.

>>>
By group, do you mean all of the switches in a cluster (cluster being a
term previously defined)?  Or is group something else?



Typos and minor editorial
===================

Section 2.4, line 6
situation -> situations (or a situation)

Section 4.1, line 11
larger topologies many of the fundamentals ->
larger topologies, many of the fundamentals

Section 4.2, last bullet
Layer-2 -> Layer 2
Layer-3 -> Layer 3
(Only instance where hyphens are used :))

Section 5.1, bullet 6
>>

It is worth mentioning that all widely deployed
      link-state IGPs also feature periodic refreshes of routing
      information, while BGP does not expire routing state, even if this
      rarely causes significant impact to modern router control planes.

>>
would read better as
>>

It is worth mentioning that all widely deployed
      link-state IGPs also feature periodic refreshes of routing
      information even if this
      rarely causes significant impact to modern router control planes,

      while BGP does not expire routing state.

>>

Section 5.1, last bullet
NRLI -> NLRI

Section 5.2.3
The section Section 8.2 -> Section 8.2

Section 5.2.5
iBGP -> IBGP

Section 5.2.5, 2nd bullet
>>

device with the other devices in the Clos

>>
change to
>>

device compared with the other devices in the Clos

>>

Section 6.1, 3rd para, 2nd line
step (e) Section -> step (e) in Section

Section 6.4, line 1
used to ECMP -> used for ECMP

Section 6.4, line 2
minimizing -> minimize

Section 7.1, 3rd para, 1st line
Ethernet technologies -> Ethernet links (or platforms)

Section 7.1, 2nd line from bottom
it's -> its

Section 7.4, 1st para after bullets, line 2 from bottom
only store -> only stores

Section 7.5, line 4 from bottom
server IP address subnet -> server IP address subnets

Section 8.1, 1st para, last line
iBGP -> IBGP

Section 8.2, 2nd para, line 2 from bottom
Tiers -> tiers

Section 8.2.2, line 9
there is no failures -> there are no failures



On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hi RTGWG,
>
> This email is to start 2 weeks RTGWG LC for
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-routing-large-dc-05
> Authors have addressed all the comments.
>
> Please indicate support or no-support as well as your comments by August
> 18, 2015.
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to
> this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR.
> The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will
> not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each
> author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff & Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>