Subject: [OPS-AREA] GROW - New work?

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:00:11 -0700

As recently as March, we were discussing shutting down the grow working
group as all milestones had been achieved and there was one remaining
document.

At the time there was support of the then working group chair for such
an action?

What changed? and what new work do we expect to see there?

thanks
joelja

_______________________________________________
OPS-AREA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:11:00 -0400

Joel,

The GROW chairs are working on a new charter that should address your
question. But in the mean time, I will try to give a brief answer.

The GROW WG should address the following tasks on an ongoing basis:

1) document trends in routing (table growth, churn etc.)
2) document anomalies in the routing subsystem (e.g., persistent route
oscillation, bgp wedgies, etc)
3) recommend BCPs that address undesirable trends in routing
4) generate requirements for the IETF routing area

The first two tasks are clearly ongoing. Tends change from year to year
and nobody can plan when an anomaly will be discovered. However, we have
a little more control over the time line with regard to the third and
fourth tasks. Let's explore an example...

>From previous work, we have learned that most BGP churn is caused by a
very small number of "bad actors". However, we aren't sure what we want
to do about it. Many ISPs, as a result of discussion held in
NANOG/RIPE/APNIC, have disabled BGP damping. Could this problem be
addressed by damping if damping parameters were configured properly?
Does BGP damping need better default parameters? If BGP damping won't
solve the problem, do we need a new BGP feature that will?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but introduce them as
examples of the questions that GROW should be asking.

You ask if the previous GROW chair supported shutting down the WG in
March. I will let Geoff speak for himself on that issue.

                                      Ron

---

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:16:48 -0600

> 4) generate requirements for the IETF routing area

Just so it doesn't get lost, I sent this email back in March to
the grow list about a couple other items:

---
	From: 	  [email-masked]
	Subject: 	Re: [GROW] Proposal to close grow working group (decision  
deferred)
	Date: 	March 23, 2007 4:27:15 AM MDT
	To: 	  [email-masked], [email-masked]
	Cc: 	  [email-masked], [email-masked]

[top post only]

Two work items that I believe GROW should add to their
Goals & Milestones:

o I-D reviewing implications of routing design on scalability
of intra-domain routing (e.g., impact of hierarchy on paths
and implications on routing system resources, impact of
path vectors, impact on optimizations like update packing,
etc..)

o I-D discussing implications of IPv4 & IPv6 bogon and
special use addresses.  Something like what the v6ops folks
tried to capture in the v6ops routing guidelines ID, though
it applies equally to IPv4 and needs this WGs full
consideration.

Neither of the above items are worded as they likely need
to be, but the general idea is captured there, i believe.

*AND there are 4 operators I know of that have already
agreed to work on these items.

-danny

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:16:37 -0400

Danny,

Please work with the GROW chairs to have this added to the charter. I
have copied them on this email.

                               Ron

Danny McPherson wrote:
>     Subject:     Re: [GROW] Proposal to close grow working group
> (decision  deferred)