Subject: [pim] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 01:51:07 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-source-discovery-bsr/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It would be good to explain when/under which conditions this experiment will be successful.
ex: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6614#section-1.3

Regards, Benoit

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:08:49 -0800

On January 23, 2018 at 4:51:07 AM, Benoit Claise ([email-masked]) wrote:

Benoit:

Hi!

It would be good to explain when/under which conditions this experiment
will be successful.
ex: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6614#section-1.3

I think that is covered in Section 1 with the following text:

   Note that this document is experimental.  While the flooding
   mechanism is largely similar to BSR, there are some concerns about
   scale as there can be multiple routers distributing information, and
   potentially larger amount of data that needs to be processed and
   stored.  Distributing knowledge of active sources in this way is new,
   and there are some concerns, mainly regarding potentially large
   amounts of source states that need to be distributed.  While there
   has been some testing in the field, we need to learn more about the
   forwarding efficiency, both the amount of processing per router, and
   propagation delay, and the amount of state that can be distributed.
   In particular, how many active sources one can support without
   consuming too many resources.  There are also parameters that can be
   tuned regarding how frequently information is distributed, and it is
   not clear what parameters are useful for different types of networks.

Do you think there’s something missing?

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:03:51 +0100

Hi Alvaro,

We're good. Thank you.

Regards, Benoit
> On January 23, 2018 at 4:51:07 AM, Benoit Claise ([email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>) wrote:
>
> Benoit:
>
> Hi!
>
>> ex:https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6614#section-1.3
>
>     Note that this document is experimental. While the flooding mechanism 
> is largely similar to BSR, there are some concerns about scale as 
> there can be multiple routers distributing information, and 
> amounts of source states that need to be distributed. While there has 
> been some testing in the field, we need to learn more about the 
> propagation delay, and the amount of state that can be distributed. In 
> particular, how many active sources one can support without consuming 
> too many resources. There are also parameters that can be tuned 
> regarding how frequently information is distributed, and it is not 
> clear what parameters are useful for different types of networks.