On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Susan Hares <[email protected]> wrote: > Warren: > > > > I cannot find your original text – so I hope this email finds you quickly. > > > > As the shepherd reviewer, I’ll encourage the authors to fix the nits. Thank > you. Do you want re-review any of issues before publication? > >
Nah. I mean I'd be interested, but don't bother waiting on me... > > Susan Hares > > -------------- > > > > On the large question, see below. > > > > I do have a large question, a comment, and a bunch of nits: > > 1: Question: > > o NEXTHOP_LB_WEIGHT: This is used for load-balancing. Each list > > member MUST be assigned a weight between 1 and 99. The weight > > determines the proportion of traffic to be sent over a nexthop > > used for forwarding as a ratio of the weight of this nexthop > > divided by the weights of all the nexthops of this route that are > > used for forwarding. To perform equal load-balancing, one MAY > > specify a weight of "0" for all the member nexthops. The value > > "0" is reserved for equal load-balancing and if applied, MUST be > > applied to all member nexthops. > > > > I'm confused what makes 0 special -- if I have e.g 17 links and I assign a > weight of e.g 42 to each of them I'll still get equal load-balancing, yes? > > > > Why is 0 reserved? I get that having one link with a weigh of e.g 12 and > another link with a weight of 0 that would cause issues, but perhaps 0 > should simply be unusable? > > I a: really don't understand and b: thing the document should have some text > answering this. > > > > Sue: I agree the document should have text that resolves discusses why zero > is unique. > > > > My recollection of 3 years ago – is that that “0” was utilized by many RIB > functions as a unique case. In order to ease gluing this to the current > operational RIBS, the “zero” value was deemed as reserved. In doing the text > update, I will go back to past chairs (Alia Atlas and Jeff Haas) to get > context. Or you can send Alia an Email. > > [Sigh – this would have been easier in March]. Ok A note of "0 is specially because of historical raisons" or something would also work for me. Mainly I'm interested. > > > > 2: Comment: Section 7.1. Using route preference > > The entire "Route preference can also be used..." paragraph, while true, > feels very out of place. I'd suggest jsut removing it. > > > > I’ll review this with the authors and send proposed text. This paragraph > was suggested to be insert in some past reviews. [Sigh] While reading the document I stumbled over this text and it distracted me, but I'm fine with it remaining if people prefer... W > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
