Subject: RE: [bmwg] draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt

From: "Karu Ratnam \(kratnam\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:44:29 -0500

Dear Authors,
Here are my comments on the frr failover methodology draft.

Thanks.
Karu Ratnam PhD
Cisco Systems

Review Comments:

Overall: The draft is written very well technically and provides
sufficient information to implement the methodology to characterize FRR
performance.
One general question: Could the authors shed light on the draft's
applicability to multicast vpn?

Section 3.4: The numbers R and L corresponds to the number of routes and
LSPs affected by the failure event? If so, one should also consider the
routes and LSPs not affected (i.e. background) by the failure.

Section 3.7: Selection of routes/LSPs to sent traffic should not be
limited to the first and last advertised routes or any other ordering
mechanism even though the draft can provide recommendation if the order
is known. Draft also should provide the method when the order is not
known.
 
Section 3.7: Last sentence: There need to be more explanation on what
the authors mean by traffic not to be send in round-robin fashion.

There can also be a scenario applicable to sections 4.1 thru 4.8 where
the incoming traffic is label traffic (i.e. MPLS LDP between head end
and TG).

Section 5: Test Methodology:
We should not be limiting the test to just use 3 streams. There is no
valid reason for that.

Section 6: Reporting Format
Need to add BFD timer information - if used, to the report.
Again, 1st, mid, and last may not be the appropriate names. One can use,
minimum failover time, maximum failover time, and perhaps mean failover
time.

________________________________

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal)
	Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:00 AM
	To: [email-masked]
	Cc: Rajiv Papneja
	Subject: [bmwg] draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt 

	FYI
	 
	Please send your comments on new draft

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-met
h-00.txt
	 
	Thanks
	Samir Vapiwala, Rajiv Papneja , Jay Karthik

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

---

From: Rajiv Papneja <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:49:29 -0500

Hello Karu,

Thanks for your comments, and compliments. Your input is greatly appreciated.
Please see inline.

Regards,
Rajiv

> applicability to multicast vpn?
rp> definitely, we can try to include that in the draft, or when this one is
merged with the other frr methodology document.
> routes and LSPs not affected (i.e. background) by the failure.
rp> Good point, we should definitely consider background tunnels, which 
are not
affected by the failover.
> is known. Draft also should provide the method when the order is not
rp> Do you think you could recommend the text for this one?
> the authors mean by traffic not to be send in round-robin fashion.
rp> Absolutely, we can try to elaborate on this part.
> the incoming traffic is label traffic (i.e. MPLS LDP between head end
rp> Yes, certainly.
> We should not be limiting the test to just use 3 streams. There is no
rp> Agree
> minimum failover time, maximum failover time, and perhaps mean failover
rp> we will try to make the changes in the reporting format.