Skip to main content

Basic BGP Convergence Benchmarking Methodology for Data-Plane Convergence
RFC 7747

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-12-04 for -04)
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)
Thanks for your work on this draft and the clear security considerations section.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -04)