Hi Tore,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:11:34PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> While I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendations in the draft and
> really wish my providers and peers will all incorporate them into their
> maintenance routines, I have one comment on the following text:
> 
>    In network topologies where BGP speaking routers are directly
>    attached to each other, or use fault detection mechanisms such as BFD
>    [RFC5880], detecting and acting upon a link down event (for example
>    when someone yanks the physical connector) in a timely fashion is
>    straightforward.
> 
> Not necessarily. Speaking from direct [painful] experiences, a router
> with a slow control plane (such as the Juniper MX80) can easily need 15
> minutes or so to fully converge after link down has been detected on an
> interface to which it had a large number of active routes. The prime
> example would be a connection to an IP-transit provider advertising
> full DFZ tables.
> 
> So in my opinion, BGP Session Culling really ought to be the BCP in all
> topologies, not just the ones «where upper layer fast fault detection
> mechanisms are unavailable and the lower layer topology is hidden from
> the BGP speakers».
> 
> Another logical consequence of this is that the rather imprecise «a few
> minutes» should ideally be expanded on, taking slow routers such as the
> MX80 into account. While five minutes of culling would be helpful, it
> would not be enough to avoid all disruption.

I think you make a valid point, would you be willing to prepare a change
proposal to address this? The document's authoritive source is on
github: https://github.com/bgpculling/draft-bgp-session-culling 

> If the operator/peer would decide to cull the session, say, 30 minutes
> ahead of the maintenance, that would be great for me and others in my
> situation. For single-homed customers of an IP-transit provider, on the
> other hand, any amount of culling only contributes to making the outage
> longer than necessary. So maybe it should be a suggestion to make it
> possible to opt out of the culling behaviour.

The myriad of issues resulting from a network single-homing on a single
connection behind a single router might be out of scope for this
document.

Kind regards,

Job

_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow

Reply via email to