This is Mirja's comment, but ... On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 10:12 AM Mirja Kühlewind <i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > One comment on section 1: > "For example, they can shift some flows > from congested links to low utilized links through an SDN controller > or PCE [RFC4655]." > I'm not aware that ipfix information is commonly used for dynamic traffic > adaptation and I'm not sure that is recommendable. C I'm agreeing with Mirja here. We've spent a LOT of time not recommending dynamic traffic adaptation. Probably half my responsibility as AD for ALTO was repeating "you can't react based on changes to that attribute without taking chances on oscillation" like it was a mystical incantation, and I wasn't the first AD to have that conversation repeatedly. I would be happy to hear that all those problems are solved, but I haven't heard that yet. Do the right thing, of course. Even "can shift some flows from persistently congested links to underutilized links" would cause me less heartburn. Spencer > an you maybe choose a > different example. E.g use of IPFIX for troubleshooting or more generally > network monitoring? Thanks! > > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
