Subject: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-03

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 01:44:57 -0700

Folks,

We have been remiss in not WGLC'ing this draft earlier, it has been stable for some time and is exceptionally short (about a half-page plus boilerplate):

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-03.txt

Please send any comments on the draft to the list by April 12, 2011.

Thanks,

--John

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:09:45 +0200

Support.

R.

> _______________________________________________
> Idr mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
>

---

From: Jeff Tantsura <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 05:13:56 -0400

Yes/Support

Regards,
Jeff

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:20:34 +0000

> Please send any comments on the draft to the list by April 12, 2011.

I have read this draft.

As a potential minor nit, shouldn't RFC 1771 be an informative reference
rather than normative?  I can see arguments either way.

-- Jeff

---

From: Rob Shakir <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:31:07 +0200

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-03.txt

I have read and support this draft.

Kind regards,
r.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:06:05 +0200

Hi all,

Ok for deprecating the MRAI default value.
 
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious or already discussed but is there
a need to recommend that an AS (SP/ISP) use (hence configure) the same
MRAI value for all its IBGP sessions?
Also, RFC 4271 made a distinction between iBGP and eBGP sessions
(basically MRAI value on iBGP should be lower than on eBGP). Does this
need to be added or is this also deprecated?

Thanks,
Regards,
Bruno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
John Scudder
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:45 AM
> To: [email-masked] List
> Subject: [Idr] WGLC for draft-ietf-idr-mrai-dep-03
> 
> Folks,
> 
> We have been remiss in not WGLC'ing this draft earlier, it has been
stable for some time and is
> exceptionally short (about a half-page plus boilerplate):
>

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:48:24 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, [email-masked] wrote:

> Sorry if I'm missing something obvious or already discussed but is 
> there a need to recommend that an AS (SP/ISP) use (hence configure) 
> the same MRAI value for all its IBGP sessions? Also, RFC 4271 made 
> a distinction between iBGP and eBGP sessions (basically MRAI value 
> on iBGP should be lower than on eBGP). Does this need to be added 
> or is this also deprecated?

That's out of scope. Implementations may or may not wish to do that. 
An earlier form of this draft (draft-jakma-mrai-02) gave more of an 
outline, but it doesn't seem there is a consensus on anything more 
specific than that the current RFC4271 defaults are not appropriate.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma  [email-masked]  twitter: @pjakma  PGP: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
*** Rince is [email-masked] (We have Joey, we have Fun, we have Linux on a Sun)
 	-- Seen on #Debian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 16:08:17 +0200

Paul,

Thanks for your reply. More inline

> From: Paul Jakma [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > the same MRAI value for all its IBGP sessions?

Any recommendation on the above point?

> > Also, RFC 4271 made

>From your above statement, I understand that the draft only deprecate
the 2 default values defined in RFC 4271. Hence the following RFC 4271
text is still applicable: " Since fast convergence is needed within an
autonomous system, either (a) the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
used for internal peers  SHOULD be shorter than the
MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for external peers, or (b) the
procedure describe in this section  SHOULD NOT apply to routes sent to
internal peers."

In that case, IMHO, the draft sentence " The appropriate choice of
default values is left to the discretion of implementors." Should be
augmented with "but as per RFC 4271 default value should be chosen lower
for iBGP peer than for eBGP peer".

Thanks,
Regards,
Bruno

---

From: Paul Jakma <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:45:27 +0100 (BST)

> Any recommendation on the above point?

I don't I'm afraid :). I don't think differing values between peers 
hurt though.

> From your above statement, I understand that the draft only 
> deprecate the 2 default values defined in RFC 4271. Hence the 
> following RFC 4271 text is still applicable: " Since fast 
> convergence is needed within an autonomous system, either (a) the 
> MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for internal peers SHOULD 
> be shorter than the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer used for 
> external peers, or (b) the procedure describe in this section 
> SHOULD NOT apply to routes sent to internal peers."

It should yes.

> for iBGP peer than for eBGP peer".

The draft as it is tries very hard to not prescribe anything except 
to remove the default values. Going beyond that likely only leads to 
an argument. ;)

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma  [email-masked]  twitter: @pjakma  PGP: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
of the risks he takes.
 		-- Adlai Stevenson

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:07:56 +0200

> to remove the default values.

My reading of the draft (which can be wrong) is that the above sentence
allows each implementation to chose any default value and hence override
RFC 4271 recommendation to have a lower value for iBGP MRAI than for
eBGP MRAI.

As an alternative, what about removing the second sentence? ("The
appropriate choice of default values is left to the discretion of
implementors.") IMO the first sentence is clear enough (   "The
suggested default values for the MinRouteAdvertisementIntervalTimer
given in [RFC4271] are deprecated")

> Going beyond that likely only leads to an argument. ;)

My point was that the second sentence already goes a bit beyond. But
really no big deal. It's up to you.