Terminology for Benchmarking Link-State IGP Data-Plane Route Convergence
RFC 6412
Discuss
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 23 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) Discuss
A few items: 0) we need to have a definition of remote vs local failure 1) Why isn't a convergence event defined as any local or remote trigger that causes a route recalculation vs one in which fwding is effected. If convergence is only to be defined by a change in forwarding what is the term that the authors recommend for an event in which a route calculation has to be made but, in fact forwarding is not changed? To the control plane of the router, the work is the same and given a catastrophic network event; a "queue" of calculations that cause no forwarding change in front of a calculation that would cause a forwarding plane change is critical to define, understand and place as a variable in the convergence equation. 2) There should be a definition of prioritized convergence in which "important prefixes" (e.g. loopbacks that are BGP NHs) are measured vs "unimportant prefixes." In addition, the important prefixes should 3) There have been alternative definitions and terminology for convergence that the authors should cite and rectify. Many of these docs have been discussed in rtgwg. 4) loops and microloops should be defined 5) units of measurement are wrong order of magnitude 6) Restoration Convergence time is unclear. The IGP sees only individual convergence events.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
Support Stewart Bryant's Discuss
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
In section 3.5 I do not understand why the measurment unit reads: 'Number of N-octet offered packets that are not forwarded' Why not just? 'Number of packets that are not forwarded' If the definition is packet loss for a packet of length N, then it is the definition field that needs to be changed.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
Like Ralph, I am very confused by the use of 2119 language in this document. I don't understand what its necessity is or who it is aimed at.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
In several definitions: Measurement Units: hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu, where 'nnn' is milliseconds and 'uuu' is microseconds. The "Measurement Units" are microseconds, while "hh:mm:ss:nnn:uuu" is a representation. Elsewhere, "Measurement Units" are defined as, e.g., "seconds" I don't understand the requirements language (this example from section 3.1.2): Discussion: Full Convergence MUST occur after a Convergence Event. "MUST occur" for compliance or interoperability with what, exactly?
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Based on Gen-ART Review by Vijay K. Gurbani.
This draft is ready for publication as an Informational RFC.
There are a few editorial changes that should be made:
- Section 1: s/of the DUT and the/of the DUT, and the/
- Section 3.1: DUT is expanded here; if it should be expanded
anywhere, it should be in Section 1.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection