Hi Jeff, There is two existing implementations of the link down. Based on the feedback from my testing, I need to update the draft to be more clear on the behavior when remote LSP is received before local detection happens. That’s on my task list.
For the link up , there was some feedback that tweaking the flooding machinery as a bad idea. One option may be to remove the link up. Best Regards, From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 20:06 To: Routing WG Subject: progress of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay Hi RTGWG, Chris and I wanted to get a sense of how the working group would like to proceed regarding draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay For sake of simplicity – anyplace further in the email - any changes to proposed to the existing IGP timers behavior by uloop–delay draft will be called - "uloop–delay algorithm" The basic question for the working group is: Should we proceed towards publication of the draft more or less as is, or should we wait to incorporate feedback from one or more implementations of the uloop-delay algorithm? As far as we know, there haven't been any implementations of the proposed uloop-delay algorithm. It would be good to get an understanding if any implementations are in progress or planned. The uloop-delay algorithm proposed in the document seems quite reasonable. However, it is also quite possible that a single implementation would uncover some unforeseen issues or suggest improvements for the functioning of the algorithm in a single vendor network. Testing with two or more implementations may provide feedback to improve the algorithm with respect to the goal of having common uloop-delay timers in a multi-vendor network. But we won't know until that work is done. If there are implementations in progress or planned, then we think it would be worth waiting to incorporate feedback from those implementations before publishing. Instead, if there are no implementations planned, we have several options. We can proceed towards publication more or less as is, with WG last call in the near future. Or we can explicitly decide to wait to publish the document, leaving it either as an active WG document or as a parked WG document, and wait for one or more implementations. With the last option, we could leave open the option of publishing at some point in the future, even if no implementations appear. Personally, I am quite hopeful that there will be at least prototype implementations in the not too distant future. While it is very unlikely that a vendor would change their defaults, it can easily be implemented with a knob to activate this algorithm. This gives a simple way to try out the new algorithm incrementally, lowering the bar significantly for at least a prototype implementation. We look forward to hearing feedback from the WG on how to proceed with the draft. Cheers, Jeff _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
