idnits 2.17.1 draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02.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 ([RIPE-378], [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 == Line 119 has weird spacing: '...S Forum apops...' -- The document date (June 27, 2011) is 4686 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 297, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable' is defined on line 305, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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: December 29, 2011 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. 6 R. Bush 7 C. Pelsser 8 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 9 June 27, 2011 11 Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey 12 draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02 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 December 29, 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2. Survey's target and period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2.1. For Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 2.2. For Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 3.1. Q1.Which is the best description of your job role? . . . . 3 69 3.1.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 70 3.1.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 71 3.2. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 3.3. Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 3.4. Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? . . . 4 74 3.5. Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap 75 Damping Considered Usable?'' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 3.6. Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do 77 you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? . . . . 5 78 3.7. Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress 79 Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default 80 value on implementations should be changed to 6K?'' . . . . 5 81 3.8. Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. . . . . 5 82 3.8.1. Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 3.8.2. Global . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 84 4. Summary of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 86 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 87 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 88 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 89 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 90 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 91 Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 92 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 94 1. Survey Purpose 96 RIPE published some recommendations such as [RIPE-178],[RIPE- 97 210],[RIPE-229] and [RIPE-378]. 99 The purpose of this survey is to understand the current usage and 100 requirements of Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] among service providers. 102 2. Survey's target and period 104 2.1. For Japan 106 Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp 108 Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011 110 2.2. For Global 112 Target: All operators who has answered the survey 113 https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey. 115 We posted this document to the following mailing list. 117 North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org 118 RIPE Routing Working Group routing-wg@ripe.net 119 Asia Pacific OperatorS Forum apops@apops.net 120 Africa Network Operators Group afnog@afnog.org 121 South Asian Network Operators Group sanog@sanog.org 122 Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group 123 lacnog@lacnic.net 125 Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011 127 3. Survey Results 129 3.1. Q1.Which is the best description of your job role? 131 3.1.1. Japan 133 This question did not exist for Japan version. 135 3.1.2. Global 136 BGP operator:27 137 Researcher:1 138 Engineer of vendor:3 139 Engineer of Network/System Integrator:13 140 Student:0 141 Other:0 143 3.2. Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ? 145 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 146 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 147 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 148 | YES | 5 | 8 | 13 | 20.6 | 149 | NO | 8 | 36 | 49 | 77.8 | 150 | Skipped Q2. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.6 | 151 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 153 3.3. Q3.If you select No on Q2,why? 155 +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+ 156 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total | Percentage[%] | 157 | | | | Number | | 158 +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+ 159 | Do not have the need | 3 | 7 | 10 | 19.6 | 160 | Did not know about | 2 | 3 | 5 | 9.8 | 161 | the feature | | | | | 162 | No benefits expected | 3 | 7 | 10 | 19.6 | 163 | Customers would | 1 | 4 | 5 | 9.8 | 164 | complain | | | | | 165 | Because I read | 2 | 13 | 15 | 29.4 | 166 | [RIPE-378] | | | | | 167 | Other | 3 | 3 | 6 | 11.8 | 168 +----------------------+-------+--------+-----------+---------------+ 170 1 person answered Q3,even if he selected "Yes" on Q2. 172 3.4. Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use? 174 +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 175 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 176 +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 177 | Default | 3 | 3 | 6 | 40.0 | 178 | parameters | | | | | 179 | [RIPE-178] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 | 180 | [RIPE-210] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 181 | [RIPE-229] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6.7 | 182 | Other | 3 | 4 | 7 | 46.7 | 183 +-------------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 184 1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2. 186 3.5. Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping 187 Considered Usable?'' 189 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 190 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 191 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 192 | YES | 12 | 21 | 33 | 52.4 | 193 | NO | 7 | 22 | 29 | 46.0 | 194 | Skipped Q5. | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1.6 | 195 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 197 One person skipped Q2, but answered Q5. 199 3.6. Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this 200 limitation to be relaxed to over 50K? 202 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 203 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 204 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 205 | YES | 10 | 14 | 24 | 38.1 | 206 | NO | 9 | 23 | 32 | 50.8 | 207 | Skipped Q6. | 0 | 7 | 7 | 11.1 | 208 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 210 3.7. Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should 211 be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations 212 should be changed to 6K?'' 214 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 215 | Answer | Japan | Global | Total Number | Percentage[%] | 216 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 217 | YES | N/A | 17 | 17 | 38.6 | 218 | NO | N/A | 18 | 18 | 40.9 | 219 | Skipped Q7. | N/A | 9 | 9 | 20.5 | 220 +-------------+-------+--------+--------------+---------------+ 222 This question did not exist for Japan version. 224 3.8. Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box. 226 Free format 228 3.8.1. Japan 230 -Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped 231 sometimes. 233 -We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non- 234 damped route. 236 -From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us 237 that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and 238 ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?" 240 -We use damping pretty heavily 242 -I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router 243 has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD. 245 3.8.2. Global 247 -Statistical reports from big Service Providers may better visualize 248 the situation. 250 -best current practices is nice, but always needs to be adjusted to 251 reflect local network settings. 253 -We used RFD in the past and came to the conclusion that we do not 254 want to use RFD any more. We still have it configured to be able to 255 get Flap statistics out of our Cisco boxes, but no prefixes get 256 dampended 258 -We recently removed all RFD from the configs due to the information 259 read on the topic among the preso's on the NANOG Archive. 261 -after seeing this survey, I read the draft; sounds promising; would 262 be nice to see vendors start to implement it. 264 -Q3, other: Juniper RFD is broken, default values count penalty for 265 both update and withdrawal, and they would not fix that. No clear 266 motivation for us, has caused outage when our customers (with 267 primiary and backup connection to us) had a flapping link. 269 -Strong desire to see the path vector penalized rather than the 270 prefix. 272 4. Summary of data 274 From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD 275 disabled. The reason varies among providers, but it is clear that 276 there are those who wish that RFD was made useful. 277 [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] describes how to improve RFD with minor 278 changes to some parameters. From the comments in the survey, the 279 most significant fear of enabling RFD is its impact on customers. 281 5. Acknowledgements 283 We thank the 63 respondant to this survey. 285 6. IANA Considerations 287 This document has no actions for IANA. 289 7. Security Considerations 291 This document has no security considerations. 293 8. References 295 8.1. Normative References 297 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 298 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 300 [RFC2439] Villamizar, C., Chandra, R., and R. Govindan, "BGP Route 301 Flap Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998. 303 8.2. Informative References 305 [I-D.ymbk-rfd-usable] 306 Pelsser, C., Bush, R., Patel, K., Mohapatra, P., and O. 307 Maennel, "Making Route Flap Damping Usable", 308 draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00 (work in progress), March 2011. 310 [RIPE-178] 311 Barber, T., Doran, S., Panigl, C., and J. Schmitz, ""RIPE 312 Routing-WG Recommendation for coor-dinated route-flap 313 damping parameters"", Feb 1998, 314 . 316 [RIPE-210] 317 Barber, T., Doran, S., Karrenberg, D., Panigl, C., and J. 318 Schmitz, ""RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated 319 route-flap damping parameters"", May 2000, 320 . 322 [RIPE-229] 323 Panigl, C., Schmitz, J., Smith, P., and C. Vistoli, ""RIPE 324 Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap 325 Damping Parameters"", Oct 2001, 326 . 328 [RIPE-378] 329 Smith, P. and C. Panigl, ""RIPE Routing Working Group 330 Recommendations On Route-flap Damping"", May 2006, 331 . 333 [Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?] 334 Pelsser, C., Maennel, O., Patel, K., and R. Bush, ""Route 335 Flap Damping Considered Useable"", Nov 2011, . 338 Appendix A. Additional Stuff 340 This becomes an Appendix. 342 Authors' Addresses 344 Shishio Tsuchiya (editor) 345 Cisco Systems 346 Shinjuku Mitsui Building, 2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku 347 Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 163-0409 348 Japan 350 Phone: +81 3 6434 6543 351 Email: shtsuchi@cisco.com 353 Seiichi Kawamura 354 NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd. 355 14-22, Shibaura 4-chome 356 Minatoku, Tokyo 108-8558 357 JAPAN 359 Phone: +81 3 3798 6085 360 Email: kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp 361 Randy Bush 362 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 363 5147 Crystal Springs 364 Bainbridge Island, Washington 98110 365 US 367 Phone: +1 206 780 0431 x1 368 Email: randy@psg.com 370 Cristel Pelsser 371 Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 372 Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105 373 Kanda-Jinbocho, Chiyoda-kun 101-0051 374 JP 376 Phone: +81 3 5205 6464 377 Email: cristel@iij.ad.jp