Wes Thanks for your comments. (2011/06/29 0:24), George, Wesley wrote: > 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?"
I prefer GROW adoption if it is possible. > 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? draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey just shows data of what operators are doing now. The survey asking all of RFC related document,and showes the result. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/grow-5.pdf This slide's page 4 explained relationship with the draft and another documents. > 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. Yes,I have the data. The number is eleven. (5 Engineer of NI/SI+1 Engineer of Vender+4 BGP operators.) I think it is not so many. Regards, -Shishio > > 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
