Subject: [bmwg] New LDP Convergence Methodology and Terminology IDs

From: "Jay Karthik (jakarthi)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:49:41 -0500

Hello BMWGers,

We have incorporated all the comments received thus far. Can you please
review the following revisions and send your comments/questions ?

LDP Convergence Methodology - (Includes comments from Bob Thomas and Al)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-karthik-bmwg-ldp-convergence-m
eth-02.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-karthik-bmwg-ldp-convergence-
meth-02.txt> 

LDP Convergence Terminology - (Nits addressed)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-
05.txt
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term
-05.txt> 

Thanks,

The Author Team

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

---

From: "Andrey Kiselev (ankisele)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:29:30 -0500

Jay and the Author team,
 
I have a few comments/questions on LDP Convergence Methodology draft. In
general it looks good for basic LDP convergence methodology. Although
there is a space for more methodology details and corner cases to add in
future versions.
 
Page 3 -  3.1. Convergence Events:
Is there any difference between Fiber Pull on DUT side vs. Fiber pull on
remote side from LDP prospective? Same question applies to OIR on remote
side.
 
Page 4 - 3.4. Selection of IGP. If you are talking of IGP selection, I
would outline which IGPs are applicable for this methodology (RIP? IGRP?
OSPF/ISIS?...).
 
Page 5 - 3.7. BGP configuration: There is no direct interaction between
BGP routes and proposed methodology per this document. There may be some
other applications consuming router memory and CPU cycles, and producing
the same effect as BGP. Why not just define free CPU and memory
requirements for this measurement regardless of other possible
applications on the DUT?
 
Page 7 - 5.2. Test Setup:
  "Advertise FECs over parallel interfaces upstream to the DUT"
 Upstream may sound a little confusing in this context. Upstream in
terms of LDP label propagation, or upstream in terms of traffic
generation? I would just say "from Egress Node to DUT".
 
Page 7 - 6. Reporting Format:
I would add 
 
Parameter                     Units
Traffic Rate                  packets per second     
 
You may also set certain requirements for traffic rate (not less than
1000 pps? not more than certain % or interface bandwidth?) as
measurement accuracy depends on it.
 
The formula for convergence time in the end of section should be
reformatted, as it is not readable in the current version.
 
Regards,
 
Andrey

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jay Karthik (jakarthi)
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Mohan Nanduri; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Rajiv Papneja; Jork,Markus
Subject: [bmwg] New LDP Convergence Methodology and Terminology IDs

Hello BMWGers,

Thanks,

The Author Team

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

---

From: "Rajiv Papneja" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:13:10 -0500

Hello Andrey,

Thanks once again for reviewing the latest version of LDP convergence
documents. I am glad to see your continued interest in the topic and taking
this work forward. Please see below -

  _____  

From: Andrey Kiselev (ankisele) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:30 AM
To: Jay Karthik (jakarthi); [email-masked]
Cc: Mohan Nanduri; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
Rajiv Papneja; Jork,Markus
Subject: RE: [bmwg] New LDP Convergence Methodology and Terminology IDs

Jay and the Author team,

I have a few comments/questions on LDP Convergence Methodology draft. In
general it looks good for basic LDP convergence methodology. Although there
is a space for more methodology details and corner cases to add in future
versions.

[rp] Yes, there is a difference in behavior between a local fiber pull vs. a
remote fiber pull. The reason being the detection times. Furthermore, we
wanted to be consistent with the IGP convergence documents

Page 4 - 3.4. Selection of IGP. If you are talking of IGP selection, I would
outline which IGPs are applicable for this methodology (RIP? IGRP?
OSPF/ISIS?...).

[rp] Yes, we should provide options, and we will address this

Page 5 - 3.7. BGP configuration: There is no direct interaction between BGP
routes and proposed methodology per this document. There may be some other
applications consuming router memory and CPU cycles, and producing the same
effect as BGP. Why not just define free CPU and memory requirements for this
measurement regardless of other possible applications on the DUT?

[rp] Agreed, but large scale BGP Routes being both memory and CPU intensive
we wanted to highlight that. I agree that sometimes other processes, like
CLI, logging processes can be CPU intensive as well. So a clarification on
CPU utilization as an initial condition would be helpful.

I think most of your comments can be addressed by providing guidance on the
initial conditions and needs to be considered as one prepares for the test

 Upstream may sound a little confusing in this context. Upstream in terms of
LDP label propagation, or upstream in terms of traffic generation? I would
just say "from Egress Node to DUT".

[rp] Sure, we can handle this

I would add 

Parameter                     Units

[rp] In addition to what Vishwas mentioned in earlier email, we will include
this as well

You may also set certain requirements for traffic rate (not less than 1000
pps? not more than certain % or interface bandwidth?) as measurement
accuracy depends on it.

[rp] Sure

Regards,

Andrey

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jay
Karthik (jakarthi)
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 1:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Mohan Nanduri; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
Rajiv Papneja; Jork,Markus
Subject: [bmwg] New LDP Convergence Methodology and Terminology IDs

Hello BMWGers,

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-karthik-bmwg-ldp-convergence-meth
-02.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-karthik-bmwg-ldp-convergence-meth-
02.txt

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-05.
txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eriksson-ldp-convergence-term-05.t
xt

Thanks,

The Author Team