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
> >
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
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
* 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
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
* 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
* 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)
>
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.
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
> > > >
> > >
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo