For what it's worth ... On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:38 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alvaro, > > > > Thanks. > > -10 has just been uploaded. > > > > 2 changes, applying text we discussed in email: > > - default timers values are added > I balloted No-Objection, supporting Alvaro's Discuss. It's appropriate that I also say explicitly that I support the resolution you worked out. That way, your AD doesn't have to be curious about what Spencer is thinking.. About this, anyway. Spencer > - slightly reworded definition of “Routing table computation” > > > > Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg- > backoff-algo > > Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff? > url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-10 > > > > Thanks for your review > > --Bruno > > > > *From:* Alvaro Retana [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:56 PM > *To:* DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG; > [email protected]; Uma Chunduri > *Subject:* RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > 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. > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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
