1. 1 IGP Data Plane Convergence draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth-21 draft-ietf-bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term-21 BMWG, IETF-78 Maastricht, July 2010 S. Poretsky B. Imhoff K. Michielsen

2. 2 IESG DISCUSS http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth/http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-meth/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term/http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf- bmwg-igp-dataplane-conv-term/

3. 3 David’s DISCUSSs David’s DISCUSSs were addressed starting rev14 and IETF-70, 2007-12 Much of the wording and structure has changed in later revisions Some recurred in following comments and DISCUSSs

4. 4 Recurring comments Measurement Unit in seconds is to coarse.  goal was to make no assumption of magnitude and represent result as a decimal fraction of seconds  propose: “seconds, in real number format”  or “seconds, with a decimal fraction of a second”

5. 5 Recurring comments Good news and bad news events, failure and recovery  both are included, every initial event is followed by a reversion of the event  make it more clear in the text

6. 6 Recurring comments Handling of ECMP cases  now: “measure Out-of-Order Packets and Duplicate Packets”  per flow 1 Out-of-Order Packets are important; potential problem for Rate-Derived and Loss-Derived with single stream (seq nr per stream)  now: “Verify traffic is forwarded over the DUT's ECMP member interface that will be failed in the next step.”  Caveat: is a representative subset of the streams going over this failing member interface? 1 RFC2991 “(...) the term "flow" to represent the granularity at which the router keeps state (if at all) for classes of traffic. The exact definition of a flow may depend on the actual implementation. For example, a flow might be identified solely by destination address, or it might be identified by (source address, destination address, protocol id) triplet.”

7. 7 Recurring comments Handling of ECMP cases (Cont.)  Duplicate Packets can be counted as lost  handling of per-flow Out-of-Order Packets depends on application

8. 8 Recurring comments point-to-point and broadcast network types  now: “All interfaces SHOULD be configured as point-to-point.”  broadcast out-of-scope?  or stay with current topologies (physical point-to-point connections) and report position of DR/DIS for broadcast network types

9. 9 Comments? Questions?