I've read the draft but couldn't attend the session due to clash in
schedule.
One point which is currently missing in the draft and which I consider very
important is effect of transition to "jumbo" on BGP. Many BGP
implementations today group updates to similar peers and format them only
once then replicate to multiple peers. Formatting is arguably more
resource-consuming compare to replication. When MTU is the same for all IXP
customers, then most of UPDATE messages will be formatted only once. During
transition period there will be peers with different MTU, and depending on
BGP implementation more than one formatting will be required. It would be
nice if the draft could be updated to address this subject.
Kind regards,
iLya
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Morrow" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:09 AM
To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Martin J. Levy"
<[email protected]>
Subject: [GROW] ixp jumbo frames doc
We had a bit of a lively discussion in the meeting today about:
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00>
Some of the topics covered were:
o Is there a problem with CRC problems with 9k ?
o is this something that the IEEE reigns supreme on?
o should there be other methods of deployment?
o is this a BCP instead of Informational doc?
o should this be adopted for WG work?
We'll pass along a separate call for adoption as well, but keep these
points in mind (and hopefully let's chat some about these as well)
-chris
(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
