Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data-Plane Convergence
draft-ietf-bmwg-bgp-basic-convergence-05
Yes
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
(was No Objection, Discuss, No Objection, Yes)
Yes
Yes
(2015-02-02)
Unknown
was Holding discuss for the resolution of the gen-art review dicussion.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-01 for -04)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing Terry's Routing Directorate review. --- I liked the understatement of BGP is ... used by several service providers as the default Inter AS routing protocol. Several == "more than two but not many" Perhaps you could s/several/many/
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-04 for -04)
Unknown
In Sec 4.4, the basic settings for Maximum TCP Window Size and MTU are not given. If there isn't a recommended value, saying so would be good.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-02 for -04)
Unknown
So sorry... I posted comments about the wrong document here. Please ignore that last message.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-03 for -04)
Unknown
As notes by Scott Bradner in his OPS directorate review. Some comments/questions on the contents of the draft: 1.1 "FIB (Data plane) convergence is defined as the completion of all FIB changes so that all forwarded traffic now takes the new proposed route. " should route be singular or plural - i.e. is the assumption that the routing table converges to a single next hop? (at least for the test traffic) if so, does the draft specifically say that (or does rfc 4098 and I missed it) note: figure 1 shows multiple peering links - sec 4.1 seems to argue for multiple peers "Data plane convergence is different than control plane convergence within a node." might want to say how they are different since reporting requiremenst are covered in section 6 should they also be mentioned here? (if so, how about in section 4.2) secton 4.4 & 4.8 maybe replace TCP MD5 with TCP Authentication Option (2 places) or at least mention it section 4.4 basic test settings - maybe say why these values were chosen section 4.7 agree as to the importance fo rrepeating trials - is there a recognized source that discusses "generally accepted testing practices regarding repeatability ..."? section 5 what about Graceful Restart (RFC 4724) - would that impact the clean start desire? section 5.1.1 "D. Start the traffic from the Emulator tx towards the DUT targeted at a routes specified in route mixture (ex. routeA)" change "a routes" to "a route" or "the routes" E & F - as noted earlier in the document - these times should be very close to the same - is it actually worth the additional complexity to collect the time when the update is received? also 5.1.2 H & I, etc section 5.1.2 mentions NTP but section 5.1.1 does not - is there a reason? section 5.2.1 - since the shutdown event is not timed - does this test provide a useful measurement? (or should the time be recorded and its just not mentioned?) section 5.3 - F - implies that the time is recorded but not actually say say that it is general comment - review all steps of all tests to be sure that NTP is called for when it is needed and that event times are specifically called for when they are needed and use consistent langage in each case the overall requiremenst - e.g. NTP could also just be noted before the test descriptions and not inlcuded in each one if it is needed in all of them - same with advice about nukbers of routes (do tests with different numbers or routes up to the full Internet table) section 6 - should this also include the number of AS Paths?
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-04 for -04)
Unknown
Shouldn't the conclusions from the discussion after the Gen-ART review be incorporated to a new draft version?
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-12-03 for -04)
Unknown
Thanks for your work on this draft and the clear security considerations section.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown