From nobody Sun Feb 5 09:19:28 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F0D129483; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:19:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vk0L5G9_abau; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:19:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8C47129481; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:19:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id v15HJJSu012715; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:19:19 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6005ED79B6; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:19:19 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id YLJxOPiuU9hV; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:19:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DF0CD7A23; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 18:19:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87mve07dyi.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Alexander Vainshtein In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Sun, 05 Feb 2017 18:19:19 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 58975E97.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 58975E97.000 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 58975E97.000 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake , "babel@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [babel] Routing area directorate early (QA) review of draft-ietf-babel-applicability X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 17:19:26 -0000 Dear Alexander, dear all, I've read your review carefully, and you have convinced me that this document is not ready for publication as an informational RFC. I think you make three very good points: (1) the introduction is lacking; (2) the deployments should, whenever possible, be described in more detail; (3) the usage of extensions should be stressed whenever applicable. This is very useful feedback, for which I am grateful. Donald -- do I need to do something in order to interrupt the last call? Thanks to all for your help, -- Juliusz From nobody Sun Feb 5 19:08:52 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55BF129AAC; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:08:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5SeXYWW_SKYD; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB26F129AA6; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id c7so46762246itd.1; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:08:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H6+ophC12aKu8wKpuy96nHO5ZU7zDZ7GzC9zC8FVvc4=; b=RST6rV8HnDsTAgaSeByEFSOgTosob+11MrrghYOjW828IoD0OASmhnkQzmpjk8JoFW iseBvgqR1cxcWiO2OPTdJb+hI344RrkHtN1GcioDH8he5DaaBUCKm9Mvp564UM4RSEVm k5lbS0quBgXkBVopsyx0rw0U9Dp6PtGuqv2t3zQfT9LIlIiPWOUSgX+WB+4hRXDVKBA2 3HdkcXlUOaTGNqM/eVX/HoUvzCVe0Wtk3UBb/xNmY2BhUv3IA78JKBrK6u9AiTsq35sV 1+TAUuxn3isGOLyAGudaAFqWz2i21z5IsWqXyqZ6AN+E9koeAQuHafTJmCA2/4+vTZ+V CHzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H6+ophC12aKu8wKpuy96nHO5ZU7zDZ7GzC9zC8FVvc4=; b=oV9ZsNZDC3sRh4SVBTndJ0hk5muOthh59hmy1yUxMW+5sH2woREnkK4OyM93jIbHFX VBnP9GO92z984QY8S7w6LrykTkLS9z19Pp2g0sHuV+Q/3Gp5tog5cVMHVfWTfwfatTcH eJ+V1D6i6QbjpOctuAAcmXX1sjyKlZ8LQnOSSreNNPc14BqlaZxcr97iUMbRPBanepp5 EdNliBicYWQfsg3cGIcjd/fVzbnFnKJhFpx34eD1T7c0l4ZbPlGmzhiMcJZJnjvFq3Ck XcdCO3rXAcAWwRlFGZKHe1n2H1QkIi4FQ8GEU9/qkR7fyiQ5apH8GSuKkMMkxZz3H8OD 3AXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLhY4P4D8CV+ytEOUDgXIoe34C63ei/tFDDSTKSGT+zdeFww1weQcEbrpaCVQ85+va5Ax55ApPoTvaupg== X-Received: by 10.36.47.213 with SMTP id j204mr5517808itj.7.1486350530015; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 19:08:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.41.72 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 19:08:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87mve07dyi.wl-jch@irif.fr> References: <87mve07dyi.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Donald Eastlake Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 22:08:34 -0500 Message-ID: To: Juliusz Chroboczek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Cc: " \(rtg-ads@ietf.org\)" , Alexander Vainshtein , "babel@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [babel] Routing area directorate early (QA) review of draft-ietf-babel-applicability X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 03:08:51 -0000 Hi Juliusz, On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Dear Alexander, dear all, > > I've read your review carefully, and you have convinced me that this > document is not ready for publication as an informational RFC. I think > you make three very good points: > > (1) the introduction is lacking; > (2) the deployments should, whenever possible, be described in more detail; > (3) the usage of extensions should be stressed whenever applicable. > > This is very useful feedback, for which I am grateful. > > Donald -- do I need to do something in order to interrupt the last call? No... Generally speaking, you can accumulate recommended changes during the Last Call and issue a revised version. If there is some controversy about recommended changes (which there wasn't in this case as the only response was your posting that you think the suggestions are pretty reasonable), the chairs might have to make a consensus call as to whether or not to make a particular change. There was good support when this draft was adopted and it is called for in the Charter but there haven't been any specific Last Call comments on this version so far. Please go ahead and update the draft based on these agreed Routing Directorate QA review comments and post a revision and I'll post an extension of the WG Last Call. Thanks, Donald PS: I'm in Sydney, Australia, this week for the Wi-Fi Alliance meeting. =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com > Thanks to all for your help, > > -- Juliusz From nobody Mon Feb 6 00:55:18 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF9812945C; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:55:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=eci365.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xsuw4XCEyemC; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:55:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR03-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr50131.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.5.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44FD9126CD8; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:55:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ECI365.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-ecitele-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=npMIW0On+JYf6762Abd6WrE72CDdlyICiLD2vxbVbgY=; b=Wk14IR3dsbx2fgmxf+EQWm+eqtBp1+vkNDW8XnnBh1+d+tReBBQ4GfKBflZY3iZlp4ZxytVZVKlK+sBjw+bxEggYCMqjL6Dhtq/0w7K9GRsL9M8+1NlnYqgbvRmPh2shGCGLuMlVs1B87X47wA1y0Lks+nSQQZys5K8yNQ+6SxI= Received: from HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.31.153) by HE1PR0301MB2268.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.168.31.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.888.16; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:55:12 +0000 Received: from HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.31.153]) by HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.31.153]) with mapi id 15.01.0888.025; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:55:12 +0000 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: Juliusz Chroboczek Thread-Topic: Routing area directorate early (QA) review of draft-ietf-babel-applicability Thread-Index: AdJqbUF2+v+klTWKTLOFsBcDuyirRQRVt4JwAQP21IAAIHg04A== Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:55:11 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87mve07dyi.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <87mve07dyi.wl-jch@irif.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com; x-originating-ip: [147.234.241.1] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e7bc477c-e0eb-47f5-595c-08d44e6ddc4c x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081); SRVR:HE1PR0301MB2268; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0301MB2268; 7: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 x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(279101305709854); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(20170203043)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(6072148); SRVR:HE1PR0301MB2268; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR0301MB2268; x-forefront-prvs: 0210479ED8 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39840400002)(39450400003)(39850400002)(39410400002)(54164003)(199003)(51444003)(252514010)(57704003)(189002)(377454003)(13464003)(6246003)(101416001)(3280700002)(66066001)(106356001)(105586002)(2906002)(305945005)(74316002)(53936002)(92566002)(189998001)(3660700001)(97736004)(7696004)(7736002)(110136003)(5660300001)(6916009)(2950100002)(230783001)(122556002)(33656002)(3846002)(6116002)(102836003)(2900100001)(39060400001)(25786008)(8936002)(68736007)(99286003)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(229853002)(77096006)(54356999)(54906002)(76176999)(38730400001)(50986999)(6436002)(6506006)(9686003)(86362001)(55016002)(4326007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0301MB2268; H:HE1PR0301MB2266.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: ecitele.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ecitele.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 Feb 2017 08:55:11.9154 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2c514a61-08de-4519-b4c0-921fef62c42a X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0301MB2268 Archived-At: Cc: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" , Donald Eastlake , "babel@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [babel] Routing area directorate early (QA) review of draft-ietf-babel-applicability X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:55:17 -0000 Dear Juliusz, Lots of thanks for your response.=20 I think that you have accurately summarized the gist of my concerns, and I = hope it is possible to update the draft accordingly. I'd like to stress that I definitely do not have any issues with the quali= fiers like "whenever possible/applicable" when it comes to providing additi= onal details, especially when it comes to actual deployments.=20 Regards, Sasha Office: +972-39266302 Cell: +972-549266302 Email: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com -----Original Message----- From: Juliusz Chroboczek [mailto:jch@irif.fr]=20 Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 7:19 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein Cc: rtg-ads@ietf.org; babel@ietf.org; Donald Eastlake Subject: Re: Routing area directorate early (QA) review of draft-ietf-babel= -applicability Dear Alexander, dear all, I've read your review carefully, and you have convinced me that this docume= nt is not ready for publication as an informational RFC. I think you make = three very good points: (1) the introduction is lacking; (2) the deployments should, whenever possible, be described in more detai= l; (3) the usage of extensions should be stressed whenever applicable. This is very useful feedback, for which I am grateful. Donald -- do I need to do something in order to interrupt the last call? Thanks to all for your help, -- Juliusz From nobody Sun Feb 19 08:05:44 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED821294D0 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lU60-iCs96Na for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qk0-x22c.google.com (mail-qk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97A44129704 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id x71so12670148qkb.3 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WUVFPaIhTWvMAzi0LrN2dW7Ys4PnSqREHoP+jAZCDU4=; b=JQW9xBCjQ/GHyGsqOOgxjc8v9IqEodITZP4tXF3/jn1C9j0mQRrXY4m+KmtgOfQPKk 9VXdRP5aAb9XZfzaGnTdT+gs20HTK6OjaEmNPQyy+bjPzRM06rJsF0qtsJRHcxFy0RFL M2rMp+IqFECz9VThEbcFJEk5TCx872nmWpkLacpj5VyARERrrnQ6gfrwne1QqQKfptvd KQO4O9BsRplPNBkLo1w6qlKK1BW+PltC+ts7GdIoCMfPj6/s2Yey3q1dlOJ57KA6N5h1 eFCj7M/peX42vtp8c8wxA1fHv27CY59R3QeslzvCpucH0GMt/r5CGU0cJZZSY+qN1mtr wo/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WUVFPaIhTWvMAzi0LrN2dW7Ys4PnSqREHoP+jAZCDU4=; b=M8FRS+z7L3ZEwaYZy9ymJVUc17yV+CXBGwV8bxgr6fG4aDxZdusR7N+osZbjVeUbDs HQeJDcc6PkiZsXw+6K4IPBEnrrISp1T3vcXNS4TTIfdkPhu1vRCKcG/LDFtE24gDYwYQ VAywS0/NuxrHlcAOxwFDVgT3RJ334gzGKzZD+KIyXUi6cSBHf9B/7PJjNS2LXP67Loyy uj1D+rrUcTXY3Sy2s3wo9U7avm0nntvx9+zZ/AijJAlXHM87o6nisMy11mJoB43DlHGz nzms7ivJh6wxPAWjmqZ7sUlFUiCFnBNua7wQUaoC7ucf+efos8KmmTrEaCS5sSGHTtJT YvZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kOqOFSkK7GJCS2+5Rj7j5e19qELDOeCdZsp379me+wEzY96Koat632ey63MWg8oOMyZsjdq8iuovAq4A== X-Received: by 10.55.20.200 with SMTP id 69mr18170671qku.59.1487520340584; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:40 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.142.132 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:40 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Taht Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:05:40 -0800 Message-ID: To: Babel at IETF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [babel] route expiry timers for rebroadcast? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:05:43 -0000 There is a possible hole in the spec here in that it doesn't clearly describe what should be done with forwarding route expiry timers. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6126#section-3.5.4 When a route's expiry timer triggers, the behaviour depends on whether the route's metric is finite. If the metric is finite, it is set to infinity and the expiry timer is reset. If the metric is already infinite, the route is flushed from the route table. After the routing table is updated, the route selection procedure (Section 3.6) is run. The corresponding 3.7 section for advertisment says: " If an update is for a route learned from another Babel speaker, the router-id and sequence number are copied from the routing table entry, and the metric is computed as specified in Section 3.5.2." where it would make some sense to also bound the client router's recieving that update to rebroadcast advertising the interval field to some amount less than the received interval, or to the actual bandwidth available on an interface, but still broadcast as catch-can... ... I ran into this issue while trying to distribute 20,000 routes over 1Mbit multicast to a dozen routers - don't do that on a production network! http://www.taht.net/~d/gentleremindertogetridoftheinfinitemcastqueueinlinux= 80211.png Incast burp. Consider yourself warned! but "an" answer to that is to start spreading the expiry interval out as you carry more routes than available bandwidth and update interval can take. Although the reference implementation lets you modify the hello interval, it always derives the expiry timer directly from that, rather than based on the load. --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht Let's go make home routers and wifi faster! With better software! http://blog.cerowrt.org From nobody Sun Feb 19 18:31:32 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891F2129624 for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:31:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wjAw-yhJ58yv for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:31:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43E6712943A for ; Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:31:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/56228) with ESMTP id v1K2VPtD011933; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:31:25 +0100 Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D26D7A15; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:31:25 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id qnJQLIT35cZo; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:31:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from trurl.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D979D79EF; Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:31:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:31:23 +0100 Message-ID: <87zihhfv9g.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Dave Taht In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Mon, 20 Feb 2017 03:31:25 +0100 (CET) X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 58AA54FD.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 58AA54FD.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 58AA54FD.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Archived-At: Cc: Babel at IETF Subject: Re: [babel] route expiry timers for rebroadcast? X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 02:31:30 -0000 > where it would make some sense to also bound the client router's > recieving that update to rebroadcast advertising the interval field to > some amount less than the received interval, or to the actual > bandwidth available on an interface, but still broadcast as > catch-can... I think there's some confusion here. These are two distinct timers -- the route expiry timer (Section 3.2.5) and the update timer (Section 3.2.2). The route expiry timer is governed by the Interval value advertised by the peer (last bullet point in Section 3.5.4), while the update timer triggers at fixed intervals. There is indeed an omission in the spec -- Section 3.7.1 does not precisely say how to deal with the update timer, it merely says that the updates are sent periodically. As you justly guessed, the protocol is robust enough to allow varying the period depending on external factors (e.g. network load), but finding the right heuristics is probably an open research problem -- the only thing that rings a bell is the pacing of refloodings in IS-IS, but that's a very different issue from pacing updates in a distance vector protocol. -- Juliusz