Subject: RE: [bmwg] draft-vapiwala-bmwg-rsvpte-convergence-motivation-00.txt

From: "Raveesh Janardan \(rjanarda\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:43:55 -0400

Hi Folks

The effort on standardizing the convergence time benchmarking for TE
tunnels is

Certainly needed and will be useful.

 I have a few questions and comments on few items in the motivational
draft authored

by you. Please let me know if you need any clarifications on the
following comments/queries.

Regards

Raveesh Janardan

Cisco System

1. Section 3.5. Typo. Steady instead of stead

2. May be good to mention  pre-existing TE/RSVP sessions impact the
performance?

3. In Section 3, TE PCALC/Routing module interaction could be a factor
in

    Convergence time especially in interface flap case.

4. When you mention Refresh reduction parameters it may be good idea to
mention

     Rapid Retransmit and Acknowledgement time parameters which could be
fine tuned for

     Better convergence similar to Rate-limiting.

5. In section 4 for the refresh reduction cases having a case to 

    Explicitly include Refresh Reduction with Bundling?  

6.  Should GR/Fast hello's be considered as a factor in convergence
time?

     This could be coupled with HA in case HA will be covered as part of
this draft.

7. It is good to see a test case scenario for RSVP Authentication. When
the scenario is 

     Expanded it would be good to include cases for different
authentication types like   

     MD5/SHA-1 and also inclusion test cases with and without
Challenges.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg