FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation
draft-ietf-grow-va-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from grow-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-grow-va@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-07-02
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
2012-07-02
|
06 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2012-04-29
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-04-25
|
06 | Ron Bonica | State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation |
2012-04-18
|
06 | Ron Bonica | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-04-18
|
06 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-03-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Document Writeup Write up for draft-ietf-grow-va-06 As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected … Document Writeup Write up for draft-ietf-grow-va-06 As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? The recommended type of RFC is Information. This is clearly stated in the title page header. Information is the recommended type because the document is not on standards track, and there is an expectation that the specified technology can be deployed. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary The continued growth in the Default Free Routing Table (DFRT) stresses the global routing system in a number of ways. One of the most costly stresses is FIB size: ISPs often must upgrade router hardware simply because the FIB has run out of space, and router vendors must design routers that have adequate FIB. FIB suppression is an approach to relieving stress on the FIB by not loading selected RIB entries into the FIB. Virtual Aggregation (VA) allows ISPs to shrink the FIBs of any and all routers, easily by an order of magnitude with negligible increase in path length and load. FIB suppression can be deployed autonomously by an ISP without requiring cooperation between adjacent ISPs, and can co-exist with legacy routers in the ISP. Working Group Summary The document has has significant participation in the workgroup for sometime. It is a group of three documents submitted to grow. The other 2 are draft-ietf-grow-simple-va-04, and draft-ietf-grow-va-auto-05, which extend this initial document. At the final time of last call there were no objections. Document Quality The document has been authored by both research members, and at least one vendor. During last call specific people were requested to review the document including active ietf members with service provider expertise. Personnel Peter Schoenmaker is the document shepherd. Ron Bonica is the AD (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed the document, along with consulting with members of the community to ensure it has been properly reviewed, and is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? There are no concerns with the depth or breadth of the reviews performed. Approaching last call there was waning comments and participation. The shepherd ensured that a sufficient review was performed. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The working group in which the document has been adopted in is composed of a wide number of active participants from the different areas. It it believed that no further review is required. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. There is a concern that over time the level of interest in the document has fallen to a limited scope of people. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Huawei has made a IPR disclosure that appears to comply. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. The IPR issues have been discussed on the mailing list. Similar to the overall interest, the objections were not raised again, when an effort to clarify and resolve the issues was brought up. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Last call was quiet. Final review had to be personally sought. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No issue has been brought up. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are 8 warnings in the document. These seems minor the the content of the document. The shephard believes that a new revision will be required as part of the IESG review process at which time the authors will clean up the nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document does not require any of the formal review criteria. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The document does not need any IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. See #17 (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The document does not use any formal language |
2012-03-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Note added 'Peter Schoenmaker is the document shepherd.' |
2012-03-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2012-03-02
|
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-03-02
|
06 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-francis-intra-va |
2011-12-30
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-06.txt |
2011-07-01
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-05.txt |
2011-02-22
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-04.txt |
2010-08-31
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-03.txt |
2010-06-23
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-grow-va-02 | |
2010-04-13
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-02.txt |
2009-10-25
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-01.txt |
2009-05-28
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-grow-va-00.txt |