Dear all,
My analysis is that the mechanism described in the draft is a local
load-balancing optimization, which doesn't influence the bits on the wire.
Note that Curtis had a similar concern during the OPSAWG meeting (see
the minutes
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-opsawg>),
Curtis Villamizar: Looks like implementation details, not operational issues.
Not appropriate here, even as an Informational RFC. Also has concerns with
specific approach, which requires configuration.
Therefore, I don't believe that this draft is appropriate for the WG.
Regards, Benoit (as a contributor)
This is a call for working group adoption of
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/.
The authors report that they've incorporated feedback given at
the IETF 86 meeting, in particular
. information model for flow rebalancing
. operational considerations
We'll be assessing consensus on 24 April 2013.
Thanks,
Melinda
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
