Hi, On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:49:10PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:41:06PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:07:32PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > > On a side note, I'd be interesting to know why reducing the impact > > > of the maintenance using gshut is not considered as worth it, while > > > it is for culling. Especially since the benefit of the latter is > > > 90 second (and configurable) while the former is minutes (and not > > > configurable). > > > > How's the IXP operator going to introduce a gshut message into a BGP > > session between IXP customer A and IXP customer B? > > an IXP can't, and I am not under the impression that Bruno was > suggestion to do so. I took his comments as applicable to section 2.1 > > this is why the proposed draft contains two angles: one for IXPs and one > for ISPs, each with their different nuances.
Indeed, for a direct ISP-ISP link, and the maintenance being controlled
by one of the peering parties, gshut would be a useful approach (if
it's known that the other party has deployed it).
Since the title of the draft is "session-culling" it feels somewhat
out of scope to go more into detail on gshut, but a reference might
be useful.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
