I guess my first question would be, "what do we hope to accomplish by having 
GROW adopt this, vs having it remain an individual submission?"

The data are interesting, and while it's no fault of the survey organizers, I'm 
not sure that 63 respondents is something that I'd consider statistically 
significant. Additionally, I wish that there were some characterization of the 
relative size and type of the networks the respondents represent. Since network 
size and application figures into how much of a scaling/customer impact 
consideration using/not using/tweaking RFD represents, that's an important 
point to have. For example, large transit networks may care about RFD as a 
tradeoff between improved scale/performance and potential customer impact. 
Small/stub networks care about it from the perspective of how often they or 
their customers are impacted by upstream dampening.  These may lead to widely 
different conclusions about if and how RFD should be applied.

In terms of updates that could be made to the draft:
I think that the draft is a bit light on conclusion. Are the survey results 
meant to be interpreted as support for draft-ymbk-rfd-usable, or simply 
demonstration that updated guidance is needed, or just as points of data left 
to the reader to interpret?

It would be helpful (if you have the data) to discuss whether the same 
respondents answered NO or skipped 3.5 as answered NO or skipped 3.6 and 3.7, 
as that would help to explain the answers as either actively disagreeing with 
the premise behind "RFD considered usable" or an opinion that does not take 
that work into account because the respondent was not aware of it.

Thanks,

Wes George



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Morrow
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 4:42 PM
To: Shishio Tsuchiya
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [GROW] Call for WG Adoption - 
draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01

2011/6/27 Shishio Tsuchiya <[email protected]>:
> Chairs and All
> We have published latest version.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02
> We could get 63 response from global operator groups.
> If you have any comments,I really appreciate it.
>

Hello Grow Folks, could we have some discussion about where this doc
sits? It seems, to me, that we're pretty close to
no-substantive-comments from the WG, so WGLC should be imminent...

-Chris

> (2011/04/01 16:55), Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> Given the discussion in IDR yesterday and in GROW today, it seems that
>> the room temperature pushed to adoption the survey work and potential
>> default's change discussion to GROW. Could we get some discussion
>> on-list about this, draft:
>> draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01
>>
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01>
>>
>> "BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route
>>     stability.  It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing
>>     CPU load on the routers.
>>
>>     But it has side-effects.  Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use
>>     Route Flap Damping (see RIPE-378).
>>
>>     Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive
>>     parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable].
>>
>>     This document describes results of a survey conducted amoung service
>>     provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping."
>>
>> Again, with the goal to pick up the draft as a WG Item, and end up
>> feeding Route Flap Dampening defaults back into vendor
>> implementations.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Chris
>> grow-co-chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> GROW mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to