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

From: "Samir Vapiwala \(svapiwal\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:03:54 -0500

Hi Vrushi

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

Regards
Samir

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:39 PM
To: Samir Vapiwala (svapiwal); [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [bmwg] draft-vapiwala-bmwg-frr-failover-meth-00.txt

Hello,

I had a chance to go through your draft and had the following comments.
 Both of them pertain to Traffic Generation section(Sec 3.7).

1.Limiting the users to use 3 streams or for that matter any number is
not a good idea. Must leave this to the person Benchmarking.

SV: Reason we are limiting 3 streams to get failover time for 1st,
middle and last prefixes or tunnel, any number of stream could mean
sending traffic in round robin fashion to every prefix or tunnel, which
will not give consistence failover time if vendor is using per prefix or
tunnel failover method. In next revision I'll provide more info on why
we are suggesting 3 streams.

2. Your example text is confusing. The "middle of the advertised route"
could mean the order of the prefix advertised or the prefix that is
right in the middle of a data structure which could again differ based
on what data structure is used.

SV: You are right, I shouldn't say ""middle of the advertised route"
I'll re-word it in version 1

Vrushi

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