Mechanisms for Optimizing Link Aggregation Group (LAG) and Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Component Link Utilization in Networks
draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-15
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-01-08
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2014-12-10
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2014-12-01
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2014-11-28
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2014-11-21
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2014-10-23
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2014-10-21
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2014-10-20
|
15 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2014-10-20
|
15 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2014-10-20
|
15 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2014-10-20
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2014-10-20
|
15 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2014-10-20
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-20
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-10-20
|
15 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot comment] the concerns in Carlos' initial opsdir review were addressed |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] Completely non-blocking comment... I agree with Adrian that there could be some confusion introduced with classification of flows as described in this document. … [Ballot comment] Completely non-blocking comment... I agree with Adrian that there could be some confusion introduced with classification of flows as described in this document. It is exacerbated by the categorization illustrated in Figure 1. I will note that there is research that shows that a multitude of short-lived flows (regardless of their size) may cause more problems than the long-lived large flows focused on in this document. |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing the SecDir review comments. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg04851.html |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] short-lived large flows, are referred to as "small flows" in this document Is that really helpful and not-at-all-confusing? Well, at least … [Ballot comment] short-lived large flows, are referred to as "small flows" in this document Is that really helpful and not-at-all-confusing? Well, at least you make the same statement three times in the document. |
2014-10-16
|
15 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2014-10-15
|
15 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2014-10-14
|
15 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2014-10-12
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2014-10-12
|
15 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Telechat review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2014-10-09
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2014-10-09
|
15 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-10-08
|
15 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2014-10-16 |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2014-10-08
|
15 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2014-10-07
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-10-07
|
15 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-15.txt |
2014-10-07
|
14 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-10-07
|
14 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2014-10-07
|
14 | Benoît Claise | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2014-09-26
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-09-26
|
14 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-14.txt |
2014-07-09
|
13 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-07-09
|
13 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2014-07-09
|
13 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2014-06-13
|
13 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-13.txt |
2014-06-13
|
12 | Ramki Krishnan | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2014-06-13
|
12 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-12.txt |
2014-05-15
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Not Ready. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. |
2014-05-06
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2014-05-02
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Yoav Nir. |
2014-04-28
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2014-04-28
|
11 | Pearl Liang | IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this … IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-11, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Martin Thomson | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Martin Thomson. |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2014-04-24
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yoav Nir |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in Networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Operations and Management Area Working Group WG (opsawg) to consider the following document: - 'Mechanisms for Optimizing LAG/ECMP Component Link Utilization in Networks' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-05-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Demands on networking infrastructure are growing exponentially due to bandwidth hungry applications such as rich media applications and inter-data center communications. In this context, it is important to optimally use the bandwidth in wired networks that extensively use link aggregation groups and equal cost multi-paths as techniques for bandwidth scaling. This draft explores some of the mechanisms useful for achieving this. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-04-22
|
11 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-04-22
|
11 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-11.txt |
2014-04-14
|
10 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2014-04-08
|
10 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-10.txt |
2014-04-06
|
09 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-09.txt |
2014-04-06
|
08 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-04-06
|
08 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-08.txt |
2014-02-18
|
07 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed |
2014-02-18
|
07 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from AD is watching::AD Followup |
2014-01-15
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2014-01-15
|
07 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-07.txt |
2014-01-15
|
06 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD is watching::Revised I-D Needed from AD is watching |
2014-01-13
|
06 | Benoît Claise | This draft was sent back to the WG because the WG LC comments were not addressed. A new version has been posted. Currently checking with … This draft was sent back to the WG because the WG LC comments were not addressed. A new version has been posted. Currently checking with the document shepherd if the latest version is complete for the AD review. |
2014-01-13
|
06 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2013-12-26
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2013-12-26
|
06 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-06.txt |
2013-12-12
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Version 5 was sent on my plate, but doesn't address the WGLC comments. |
2013-12-12
|
05 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2013-12-12
|
05 | Benoît Claise | Shepherd Template: 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested: Intended status: Informational. It is Informational largely because it is not anything … Shepherd Template: 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested: Intended status: Informational. It is Informational largely because it is not anything else -- it is not a Standard, is not a BCP, it is neither Experimental, nor Historic. It does however provide information useful to the general Internet community / implementors. (2) Document Announcement Write-Up: Technical Summary: This draft explores some mechanisms useful for achieving optimal use of bandwidth in wired networks that make extensive use of LAG/ECMP techniques for bandwidth scaling. Working Group Summary: There was no major drama in the WG related to this document. The document received significant review / revision before being adopted. Document Quality: The document is well written and easy to follow. A number of authors indicated that their employers are implementing, or have plans to implement this. There was some discussion at adoption time regarding if implementation advice is appropriate work for the WG. Consensus was on the side of adoption. There was also (primarily off-list) discussion that implementations should expose per-interface queue length. This information would make the technique in the draft more useful and could allow one to avoid placing traffic on interfaces that have long queues for some reason. While this would make the technique better, interface counters provide sufficient information to make the technique useful. Personnel: Warren Kumari is the Document Shepherd. Benoit Claise is the Responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. The document shepherd was not tracking the document as it progressed through the WG. He has however gone back and read the archives, reviewed the draft, etc. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. There was significant discussion on document (primarily before adoption). (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective? No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yup. There was a delay submitting this while awaiting positive ACKs, but all good now. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? There were IPR disclosures filed on earlier versions of the document (draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-07). The IPR issue was discussed during the adoption call. The offending text was removed in draft-krishnan-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-08 and then the document was adopted. An updated IPR disclosure was filed, stating: "All IPR related material have been removed from the latest version of the draft" (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is good consensus. The WG is not very active, so there were not a huge number of responses, but they were largely supportive. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? Nope! (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. There is no submission date in the document. It *appears* that this is because there are 6 authors, and so xml2rfc (or whatever was used) couldn't fit it in. I think that this can be dealt with by the RFC Editor. There are (as always) minor grammatical / formatting nits (such as an extra period, etc). These can be (IMO) handled by the RFC Ed. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria. None needed. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. All are informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement? Nope. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? Nope. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Nope. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. The IANA Considerations section says: "This memo includes no request to IANA." The document shepherd reviewed this for consistency with the body of the document multiple times, carefully checking the spelling, grammar and even text kerning. He briefly thought that it was in a different font, but then realized that a: it's all ASCII and b: he needs a nap. (It's fine). (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. None. (19) Describe checks to validate formal language. No formal language exists. |
2013-10-07
|
05 | Benoît Claise | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | State Change Notice email list changed to opsawg-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing@tools.ietf.org |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Responsible AD changed to Benoit Claise |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG state set to Publication Requested |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Changed document writeup |
2013-10-04
|
05 | Warren Kumari | Document shepherd changed to Warren Kumari |
2013-09-29
|
05 | Melinda Shore | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from WG Document |
2013-08-23
|
05 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-05.txt |
2013-07-09
|
04 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-04.txt |
2013-07-09
|
03 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-03.txt |
2013-06-25
|
02 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-02.txt |
2013-06-23
|
01 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-01.txt |
2013-05-08
|
00 | Ramki Krishnan | New version available: draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-00.txt |