Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread Christopher Morrow
err, I should have just mailed an adoption call :) I'll do that and note that nick/gert/job all already voted 'yes'. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Christopher Morrow wrote: > > we seem to be having quite the discussion on this document, ought it be > >

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread David Farmer
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:29:01PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > we seem to be having quite the discussion on this document, ought it be a > > WG draft ? should we vote to adopt? :) > > Yes, please make this a

[GROW] WG Adoption call: draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling ENDS - 03/28/2017

2017-03-14 Thread Christopher Morrow
howdy WG folk: Noting the large amount of discussion on this draft already on-list, I'd like to open a call for WG Adoption of this draft. The abstract: "This document outlines an approach to mitigate negative impact on networks resulting from maintenance activities. It includes guidance

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

2017-03-14 Thread Tore Anderson
* Nick Hilliard > Tore Anderson wrote: > > My point here was that if the IXP is doing maintenance, it could shut > > all ports to all members simultaneously, and thus get the exact same > > effect as the «when someone yanks the physical connector» scenario > > described in the

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

2017-03-14 Thread Nick Hilliard
Tore Anderson wrote: > By the way, as an IXP operator, you also have the possibility to simply > shut down your members' interfaces prior to performing maintenance, > instead of doing culling. Doing so would be completely analogous to the > directly connected BGP speakers scenario discussed in

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

2017-03-14 Thread Tore Anderson
* Nick Hilliard > Tore Anderson wrote: > > In other words: in my opinion, BGP session culling should be > > considered a BCP even in situations where link state signaling > > and/or BFD is used. IP-transit providers should perform culling > > towards their customers ahead of

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

2017-03-14 Thread Tore Anderson
* Job Snijders > TEXT: > In network topologies where BGP speaking routers are directly > attached to each other, or use fault detection mechanisms such as > BFD, detecting and acting upon a link > down event (for example when someone yanks the physical connector) >

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

2017-03-14 Thread Nick Hilliard
Tore Anderson wrote: > In other words: in my opinion, BGP session culling should be considered > a BCP even in situations where link state signaling and/or BFD is used. > IP-transit providers should perform culling towards their customers > ahead of maintenance works. Direct peers, likewise.

Re: [GROW] Comment on draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling

2017-03-14 Thread Job Snijders
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 01:05:08PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Nick Hilliard > > Tore Anderson wrote: > > > In other words: in my opinion, BGP session culling should be > > > considered a BCP even in situations where link state signaling > > > and/or BFD is used. IP-transit

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread bruno.decraene
> From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of heasley > > Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:07:21AM +0100, Alejandro Acosta: > > What do you think in including also some suggestions when bringing up > > the BGP sessions?. Sometimes it´s good idea to bring them up one by one > > or something

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread bruno.decraene
> From: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net] > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:28:56PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of heasley > > > > > > Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:07:21AM +0100, Alejandro Acosta: > > > > What do you

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread Job Snijders
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:28:56PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of heasley > > > > Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 02:07:21AM +0100, Alejandro Acosta: > > > What do you think in including also some suggestions when bringing up > > > the

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread Job Snijders
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:07:32PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > From: Job Snijders [mailto:j...@instituut.net] > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 02:28:56PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > > > From: GROW [mailto:grow-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of heasley > > > > > > >

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:07:32PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > On a side note, I'd be interesting to know why reducing the impact > of the maintenance using gshut is not considered as worth it, while > it is for culling. Especially since the benefit of the latter is > 90 second

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:49:10PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:41:06PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:07:32PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > > On a side note, I'd be interesting to know why reducing the impact > > > of the

Re: [GROW] draft-iops-grow-bgp-session-culling-00

2017-03-14 Thread Job Snijders
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 04:41:06PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:07:32PM +, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: > > On a side note, I'd be interesting to know why reducing the impact > > of the maintenance using gshut is not considered as worth it, while > > it is for