Hi Anoop, Thanks for the quick response and for the clarification. Clarification text and better references as you suggest would be welcome.
I am not sure RFC 2991 is a solid reference for ECMP. Maybe you should ask Dave Thaler. There is another problem that this document prompts to. If the protocol described by RFC 3176 is indeed 'deprecated' the RFC should be made Historical. That's an issue for the IESG to consider. Regards, Dan From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 6:31 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: Melinda Shore; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG last call for "Mechanisms for Optimal LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in Networks" Hi Dan, Thanks for the careful review. Please see inline. On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, I apologize for the one day delay in sending this review. Vacation interfered. I read the document and I have a basic unclarity. Hopefully it is just me, and maybe some clarification text and references to be added. What does this document exactly refer to when saying 'LAG/ECMP techniques'? Is this either LAG (layer 2) or ECMP, or a combination of the two, or all of these? There is no reference at all in the document for LAG, no solid reference for ECMP (2992 only refers to 'an ECMP algorithm'). It refers to all of them, i.e. LAG, ECMP, and even the (hierarchical) combination. We can try and provide some clarification around that. We will add 802.1AX as a reference for LAG. What would be a reasonable reference for ECMP? Would RFC 2991 suffice? I also had a hard time finding the sFlow references. In desperation I went to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFlow which kindly informed me that > sFlow is a technology for monitoring network,[1] wireless[2] and host[3] > devices. The sFlow.org consortium[4] is the authoritative source for the > sFlow protocol specifications.[5] sFlow version 5 is the current version of > sFlow. Previous versions of sFlow, including RFC 3176, have been > deprecated.[6] This seems problematic. RFC 3176 has no mark of being 'deprecated' in IETF terms anyway. The reference that we have for sflow in the references section is the "sflow Version 5" specification which is located at http://sflow.org/sflow_version_5.txt. We can update the reference to include the URL. Anoop > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf > Of Melinda Shore > Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 11:07 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [OPSAWG] WG last call for "Mechanisms for Optimal LAG/ECMP > Component Link Utilization in Networks" > > This is to announce the start of working group last call on: > > Mechanisms for Optimal LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in > Networks > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load- > balancing/ > > It is intended for publication as an informational RFC. > > Please give it a careful read and provide any feedback to this mailing > list by September 9, 2013 > > Thanks, > > opsawg chairs > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
