idnits 2.17.1 draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC2439]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 14, 2011) is 4782 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable' is defined on line 266, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force S. Tsuchiya, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems 4 Intended status: Informational S. Kawamura 5 Expires: September 15, 2011 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. 6 R. Bush 7 C. Pelsser 8 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 9 March 14, 2011 11 Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey 12 draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-01 14 Abstract 16 BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route 17 stability. It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing 18 CPU load on the routers. 20 But it has side-effects. Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use 21 Route Flap Damping (see RIPE-378). 23 Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive 24 parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable]. 26 This document describes results of a survey conducted amoung service 27 provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping. 29 Status of this Memo 31 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 32 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 34 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 35 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 36 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 37 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 39 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 40 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 41 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 42 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 44 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 15, 2011. 46 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Survey Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 2. Survey's target and period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 2.1. For Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 2.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 3. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 3.1. Q1.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 3.1.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3.1.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3.2. Q2.If you select No on Q1,why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 3.2.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 3.2.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 3.3. Q3.If you select Yes on Q1,what parameter do you use? . . . 5 75 3.3.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 3.3.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 77 3.4. Q4.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap 78 Damping Considered Usable?'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 79 3.4.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 80 3.4.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 81 3.5. Q5.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do 82 you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 6 83 3.5.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 84 3.5.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 3.6. Q6.If you have any comments, please fill this box. . . . . 6 86 3.6.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 87 3.6.2. All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 88 4. Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 89 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 90 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 91 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 92 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 93 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 94 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 95 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 96 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 98 1. Survey Purpose 100 RIPE published some recommendations such as RIPE-178 [RIPE-178],RIPE- 101 210 [RIPE-210],RIPE-229 [RIPE-229] and RIPE-378 [RIPE-378]. 103 The purpose of this survey is to understand the current usage and 104 requirements of Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] among service providers. 106 2. Survey's target and period 108 2.1. For Japan 110 Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp 112 Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011 114 2.2. All 116 Target: All operators that will answer the survey following the 117 publication of this document. 119 Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011 121 Please open the following url and answer the questionaire. 123 https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey 125 3. Survey Results 127 3.1. Q1.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? 129 3.1.1. Japan 131 Yes: 5 133 No: 13 135 1 respondant skipped this question 137 3.1.2. All 139 No results yet! 141 3.2. Q2.If you select No on Q1,why? 143 3.2.1. Japan 145 Do not have the need: 3 147 Did not know about the feature: 2 149 No benefits expected: 3 151 Customers would complain:1 153 Because I read RIPE-378 [RIPE-378]:2 155 Other: 3 157 3.2.2. All 159 No results yet! 161 3.3. Q3.If you select Yes on Q1,what parameter do you use? 163 3.3.1. Japan 165 Default parameters: 3 167 RIPE-178 [RIPE-178]: 0 169 RIPE-210 [RIPE-210]: 0 171 RIPE-229 [RIPE-229]: 0 173 Other: 3 175 1 person answered Q3, even if he selected "No" on Q1. 177 3.3.2. All 179 No results yet! 181 3.4. Q4.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping 182 Considered Usable?'' 184 3.4.1. Japan 186 Yes: 12 188 No: 7 189 One person skipped Q1, but answered Q4. 191 3.4.2. All 193 No results yet! 195 3.5. Q5.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this 196 limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? 198 3.5.1. Japan 200 Yes: 10 202 No: 9 204 3.5.2. All 206 No results yet! 208 3.6. Q6.If you have any comments, please fill this box. 210 Free format 212 3.6.1. Japan 214 -Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped 215 sometimes. 217 -We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non- 218 damped route. 220 -From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us 221 that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and 222 ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?" 224 -We use damping pretty heavily 226 -I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router 227 has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD. 229 3.6.2. All 231 No results yet! 233 4. Summary of data 235 From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD 236 disabled. The reason varies among providers, but it is clear that 237 there are those who wish that RFD was made useful. 238 [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] describes how to improve RFD with minor 239 changes to some parameters. From the comments in the survey, the 240 most significant fear of enabling RFD is its impact on customers. 242 5. Acknowledgements 244 We thank the 19 respondant to this survey. 246 6. IANA Considerations 248 This document has no actions for IANA. 250 7. Security Considerations 252 This document has no security considerations. 254 8. References 256 8.1. Normative References 258 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 259 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 261 [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route 262 Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. 264 8.2. Informative References 266 [I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable] 267 Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O. 268 Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable", 269 draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress), March 2011. 271 [RIPE-178] 272 Barber, T., Doran, S., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, ""RIPE 273 Routing-WG Recommendation for coor-dinated route-flap 274 damping parameters"", Feb 1998, 275 . 277 [RIPE-210] 278 Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J. 279 Schmitz, ""RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated 280 route-flap damping parameters"", May 2000, 281 . 283 [RIPE-229] 284 Panigl, C., Schmitz, J., Smith, P., and C. Vistoli, ""RIPE 285 Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap 286 Damping Parameters"", Oct 2001, 287 . 289 [RIPE-378] 290 Smith, P. and C. Panigl, ""RIPE Routing Working Group 291 Recommendations On Route-flap Damping"", May 2006, 292 . 294 [Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?] 295 Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Patel, K., and R. Bush, ""Route 296 Flap Damping Considered Useable"", Nov 2011, . 299 Appendix A. Additional Stuff 301 This becomes an Appendix. 303 Authors' Addresses 305 Shishio Tsuchiya (editor) 306 Cisco Systems 307 Shinjuku Mitsui Building, 2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku 308 Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 163-0409 309 Japan 311 Phone: +81 3 6434 6543 312 Email: shtsuchi@cisco.com 314 Seiichi Kawamura 315 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. 316 14-22, Shibaura 4-chome 317 Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558 318 JAPAN 320 Phone: +81 3 3798 6085 321 Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp 322 Randy Bush 323 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 324 5147 Crystal Springs 325 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 326 US 328 Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1 329 Email: randy@psg.com 331 Cristel Pelsser 332 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 333 Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105 334 Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-kun 101-0051 335 JP 337 Phone: +81 3 5205 6464 338 Email: cristel@iij.ad.jp