On February 27, 2018 at 10:43:42 AM, [email protected] ( [email protected]) wrote:
Bruno: Hi! You and I have a significant difference in opinion related to what can be expected of a typical network operator. In short, I don’t think that we can expect the same from that typical operator as we can from someone like you. [To avoid confusion: this is a compliment! :-) ] I will reply on the Responsible AD for any changes that may be needed from my comments. I will clear my DISCUSS if the text you proposed below is included in the draft. Thanks! Alvaro. .... > Back to the point of this DISCUSS, the importance of consistent values is > clear! Based on the experience of existing implementations, please specify > "safe" default values. [Bruno] Ok. First of all, I do think that the "best" default are likely to change over time (as both CPU power and customer requirements increase). Over the last 15+ years, this has already happened on some implementations https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/ip-routing/211432-Change-of-Default-OSPF-and-IS-IS-SPF-and.html Also for the BGP protocol, this also happened for BGP Route Flap dampening parameters (cf RFC 2439 & 7196). They are also likely to be dependent of the segment market (e.g. backbone vs backhaul vs "pre-aggregation"). I would propose the following addition: NEW: If this SPF backoff algorithm is enabled by default, then in order to have consistent SPF delays between implementations with default configuration, the following default values SHOULD be implemented: INITIAL_SPF_DELAY 50 ms, SHORT_SPF_DELAY 200ms, LONG_SPF_DELAY: 5 000ms, TIME_TO_LEARN_INTERVAL 500ms, HOLDDOWN_INTERVAL 10 000ms.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
