One document matched: draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->
<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5226 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2439 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2439.xml">
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc='yes'?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth='4'?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc toc='yes'?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-shishio-grow-isp-rfd-implement-survey-02" ipr="trust200902">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
or pre5378Trust200902
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->
<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->
<front>
<!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the
full title is longer than 39 characters -->
<title abbrev="RFD Depoyment Survey">
Route Flap Damping Deployment Status Survey
</title>
<!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->
<!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->
<author fullname="Shishio Tsuchiya" initials="S.T." role="editor"
surname="Tsuchiya">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Shinjuku Mitsui Building, 2-1-1, Nishi-Shinjuku</street>
<city>Shinjuku-Ku</city>
<region>Tokyo</region>
<code>163-0409</code>
<country>Japan</country>
</postal>
<phone>+81 3 6434 6543</phone>
<email>shtsuchi@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Seiichi Kawamura" initials="S.K" surname="Kawamura">
<organization>NEC BIGLOBE, Ltd.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>14-22, Shibaura 4-chome</street>
<city>Minatoku</city>
<region>Tokyo</region>
<code>108-8558</code>
<country>JAPAN</country>
</postal>
<phone>+81 3 3798 6085</phone>
<email>kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Randy Bush" initials="R.B" surname="Bush">
<organization>Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>5147 Crystal Springs</street>
<city> Bainbridge Island</city>
<region>Washington</region>
<code>98110</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 206 780 0431 x1</phone>
<email>randy@psg.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Cristel Pelsser" initials="C.P" surname="Pelsser">
<organization>Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Jinbocho Mitsui Buiding, 1-105</street>
<city> Kanda-Jinbocho</city>
<region>Chiyoda-kun</region>
<code>101-0051</code>
<country>JP</country>
</postal>
<phone>+81 3 5205 6464</phone>
<email>cristel@iij.ad.jp</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="June" year="2011" />
<!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill
in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is
necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the
purpose of calculating the expiry date). With drafts it is normally sufficient to
specify just the year. -->
<!-- Meta-data Declarations -->
<area>Operations & Management</area>
<workgroup>Internet Engineering Task Force</workgroup>
<!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
IETF is fine for individual submissions.
If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->
<keyword>template</keyword>
<!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
keywords will be used for the search engine. -->
<abstract>
<t>BGP Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] is a mechanism that targets route stability. It penalyzes routes that flap with the aim of reducing CPU load on the routers.</t>
<t>But it has side-effects. Thus, in 2006, RIPE recommended not to use Route Flap Damping (see [RIPE-378]).</t>
<t>Now, some researchers propose to turn RFD, with less aggressive parameters, back on [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable].</t>
<t>This document describes results of a survey conducted amoung service provider on their use of BGP Route Flap Damping. </t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Survey Purpose">
<t>RIPE published some recommendations such as [RIPE-178],[RIPE-210],[RIPE-229] and [RIPE-378].</t>
<t>The purpose of this survey is to understand the current usage and requirements of Route Flap Damping [RFC2439] among service providers.</t>
</section>
<section title="Survey's target and period">
<section title="For Japan">
<t>Target: Japan Network Operator Group janog@janog.gr.jp</t>
<t>Period: Jan 28,2011 - Feb 12,2011</t>
</section>
<section title="For Global">
<t>Target: All operators who has answered the survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/rfd-survey.</t>
<t>We posted this document to the following mailing list.</t>
<artwork>
North American Network Operators Group nanog@nanog.org
RIPE Routing Working Group routing-wg@ripe.net
Asia Pacific OperatorS Forum apops@apops.net
Africa Network Operators Group afnog@afnog.org
South Asian Network Operators Group sanog@sanog.org
Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
lacnog@lacnic.net
</artwork>
<t>Period:Mar 7,2011 - May 25,2011</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Survey Results">
<section title="Q1.Which is the best description of your job role?">
<section title="Japan">
<t>This question did not exist for Japan version.</t>
</section>
<section title="Global">
<artwork>
BGP operator:27
Researcher:1
Engineer of vendor:3
Engineer of Network/System Integrator:13
Student:0
Other:0
</artwork>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Q2.Do you use Route Flap Damping ?">
<!--<section title="Japan">
<artwork>
Yes: 5
No: 13
1 respondant skipped this question
</artwork>
</section>
<section title="All">
<artwork>
Yes: 8
No: 36
</artwork>
</section>-->
<!--<section title="Q2.Survey Result">-->
<texttable align='left'>
<ttcol align='left'>Answer</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Japan</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Global</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Total Number</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Percentage[%]</ttcol>
<c>YES</c>
<c>5</c>
<c>8</c>
<c>13</c>
<c>20.6</c>
<c>NO</c>
<c>8</c>
<c>36</c>
<c>49</c>
<c>77.8</c>
<c>Skipped Q2.</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>1.6</c>
</texttable>
<!--</section>-->
</section>
<section title="Q3.If you select No on Q2,why?">
<!--<section title="Japan">
<t>Do not have the need: 3</t>
<t>Did not know about the feature: 2</t>
<t>No benefits expected: 3</t>
<t>Customers would complain:1</t>
<t>Because I read <xref target="RIPE-378">RIPE-378</xref>:2</t>
<t>Other: 3</t>
</section>
<section title="All">
<t>Do not have the need: 7</t>
<t>Did not know about the feature: 3</t>
<t>No benefits expected: 7</t>
<t>Customers would complain:4</t>
<t>Because I read <xref target="RIPE-378"></xref>:13</t>
<t>Other: 3</t>
<t>1 person answered Q3,even if he selected "Yes" on Q2.</t>
</section>-->
<!--<section title="Q3.Survey Result">-->
<texttable align='left'>
<ttcol align='left'>Answer</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Japan</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Global</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Total Number</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Percentage[%]</ttcol>
<c>Do not have the need</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>10</c>
<c>19.6</c>
<c>Did not know about the feature</c>
<c>2</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>5</c>
<c>9.8</c>
<c>No benefits expected</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>10</c>
<c>19.6</c>
<c>Customers would complain</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>4</c>
<c>5</c>
<c>9.8</c>
<c>Because I read [RIPE-378]</c>
<c>2</c>
<c>13</c>
<c>15</c>
<c>29.4</c>
<c>Other</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>6</c>
<c>11.8</c>
</texttable>
<t>1 person answered Q3,even if he selected "Yes" on Q2.</t>
<!--</section>-->
</section>
<section title="Q4.If you select Yes on Q2,what parameter do you use?">
<!--<section title="Japan">
<t>Default parameters: 3</t>
<t><xref target="RIPE-178">RIPE-178</xref>: 0</t>
<t><xref target="RIPE-210">RIPE-210</xref>: 0</t>
<t><xref target="RIPE-229">RIPE-229</xref>: 0</t>
<t>Other: 3</t>
<t>1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2.</t>
</section>
<section title="All">
<t>Default parameters: 3</t>
<t><xref target="RIPE-178">RIPE-178</xref>: 1</t>
<t><xref target="RIPE-210">RIPE-210</xref>: 0</t>
<t><xref target="RIPE-229">RIPE-229</xref>: 1</t>
<t>Other: 4</t>
<t>1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2.</t>
</section>-->
<!--<section title="Q4.Survey Result">-->
<texttable align='left'>
<ttcol align='left'>Answer</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Japan</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Global</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Total Number</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Percentage[%]</ttcol>
<c>Default parameters</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>6</c>
<c>40.0</c>
<c>[RIPE-178]</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>6.7</c>
<c>[RIPE-210]</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>0.0</c>
<c>[RIPE-229]</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>6.7</c>
<c>Other</c>
<c>3</c>
<c>4</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>46.7</c>
</texttable>
<t>1 person answered Q4, even if he selected "No" on Q2.</t>
<!--</section>-->
</section>
<section title="Q5.Do you know Randy Bush et. al's report ''Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?'' ">
<!--<section title="Japan">
<artwork>
Yes: 12
No: 7
One person skipped Q2, but answered Q5.
</artwork>
</section>
<section title="All">
<artwork>
Yes: 21
No: 22
One person skipped Q5.
</artwork>
</section>-->
<!--<section title="Q5.Survey Result">-->
<texttable align='left'>
<ttcol align='left'>Answer</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Japan</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Global</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Total Number</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Percentage[%]</ttcol>
<c>YES</c>
<c>12</c>
<c>21</c>
<c>33</c>
<c>52.4</c>
<c>NO</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>22</c>
<c>29</c>
<c>46.0</c>
<c>Skipped Q5.</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>1</c>
<c>1.6</c>
</texttable>
<t>One person skipped Q2, but answered Q5.</t>
<!--</section>-->
</section>
<section title="Q6.IOS's max-penalty is currently limited to 20K. Do you need this limitation to be relaxed to over 50K?">
<!--<section title="Japan">
<artwork>
Yes: 10
No: 9
</artwork>
</section>
<section title="All">
<artwork>
Yes: 14
No: 23
7 persons skipped Q6.
</artwork>
</section>-->
<!--<section title="Q6.Survey Result">-->
<texttable align='left'>
<ttcol align='left'>Answer</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Japan</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Global</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Total Number</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Percentage[%]</ttcol>
<c>YES</c>
<c>10</c>
<c>14</c>
<c>24</c>
<c>38.1</c>
<c>NO</c>
<c>9</c>
<c>23</c>
<c>32</c>
<c>50.8</c>
<c>Skipped Q6.</c>
<c>0</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>7</c>
<c>11.1</c>
</texttable>
<!--</section>-->
</section>
<section title="Q7.According to [draft-ymbk-rfd-usable],Suppress Threshold should be set to 6K.Do you think the default value on implementations should be changed to 6K?'' ">
<!--<section title="Japan">
<t>This question did not exist for Japan version.</t>
</section>
<section title="All">
<artwork>
Yes: 17
No: 18
9 persons skipped Q7.
</artwork>
</section>-->
<!--<section title="Q7.Survey Result">-->
<texttable align='left'>
<ttcol align='left'>Answer</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Japan</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Global</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Total Number</ttcol>
<ttcol align='right'>Percentage[%]</ttcol>
<c>YES</c>
<c>N/A</c>
<c>17</c>
<c>17</c>
<c>38.6</c>
<c>NO</c>
<c>N/A</c>
<c>18</c>
<c>18</c>
<c>40.9</c>
<c>Skipped Q7.</c>
<c>N/A</c>
<c>9</c>
<c>9</c>
<c>20.5</c>
</texttable>
<t>This question did not exist for Japan version.</t>
<!--</section>-->
</section>
<section title="Q8.If you have any comments, please fill this box.">
<t>Free format</t>
<section title="Japan">
<t>-Our peer seems to have damping enabled, and our prefix gets damped sometimes.</t>
<t>-We do not enable damping because we think that customers want a non-damped route.</t>
<t>-From the perspective of a downstream ISP, if our upstream told us that an outage occurred because a route was damped, I may call and ask "is it written in the agreement that you will do this?"</t>
<t>-We use damping pretty heavily</t>
<t>-I had RFD turned on until this morning when I discovered our router has CSCtd26215 issues. I would like to turn on a "useful" RFD.</t>
<!--<t>From the free form comment box, we conclude that:</t>
<t>1) Some transit providers stopped using RFD after customer complaints. </t>
<t>2) Some large scale operator continue using RFD to protect CPU utilization.</t>-->
</section>
<section title="Global">
<t>-Statistical reports from big Service Providers may better visualize the situation.</t>
<t>-best current practices is nice, but always needs to be adjusted to reflect local network settings.</t>
<t>-We used RFD in the past<!-- (one of the authors of RIPE178, RIPE210 and RPE229 is my boss Christian Panigl :-) --> and came to the conclusion that we do not want to use RFD any more. We still have it configured to be able to get Flap statistics out of our Cisco boxes, but no prefixes get dampended</t>
<t>-We recently removed all RFD from the configs due to the information read on the topic among the preso's on the NANOG Archive.</t>
<t>-after seeing this survey, I read the draft; sounds promising; would be nice to see vendors start to implement it.</t>
<t>-Q3, other: Juniper RFD is broken, default values count penalty for both update and withdrawal, and they would not fix that. No clear motivation for us, has caused outage when our customers (with primiary and backup connection to us) had a flapping link.</t>
<t>-Strong desire to see the path vector penalized rather than the prefix.</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Summary of data">
<t>
From the survey we see that there are many service providers with RFD disabled.
The reason varies among providers, but it is clear that there are those who wish that RFD was made useful.
[draft-ymbk-rfd-usable] describes how to improve RFD with minor changes to some parameters.
<!--Half of the providers which enable rfd use the default vendor parameters.-->
From the comments in the survey, the most significant fear of enabling RFD is its impact on customers.
</t></section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
<t>We thank the 63 respondant to this survey.
<!--We would like to thanks Chika Yoshimura, Yutaka Kikuchi are responded on janog mailing list.--></t>
</section>
<!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->
<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This document has no actions for IANA.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>This document has no security considerations.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<!-- *****BACK MATTER ***** -->
<back>
<!-- References split into informative and normative -->
<!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
(for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")
Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
with a value containing a set of directories to search. These can be either in the local
filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->
<references title="Normative References">
<!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
&RFC2119;
&RFC2439;
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.draft-ymbk-rfd-usable-00.xml"?>
<reference anchor="RIPE-378" target="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-378">
<front><title>"RIPE Routing Working Group Recommendations On Route-flap Damping"</title>
<author initials="P.S" surname="Smith">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C.P" surname="Panigl">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2006" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RIPE-178" target="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-178.txt">
<front>
<title>"RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coor-dinated route-flap damping parameters"</title>
<author initials="T.B" surname="Barber">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="S.D" surname="Doran">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C.P" surname="Panigl">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J.S" surname="Schmitz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="Feb" year="1998" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RIPE-210" target="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-210.txt">
<front>
<title>"RIPE Routing-WG Recommendation for coordinated route-flap damping parameters"</title>
<author initials="T.B" surname="Barber">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="S.D" surname="Doran">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="D.K" surname="Karrenberg">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C.P" surname="Panigl">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J.S" surname="Schmitz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2000" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RIPE-229" target="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-229.txt">
<front>
<title>"RIPE Routing-WG Recommendations for Coordinated Route-flap Damping Parameters"</title>
<author initials="C.P" surname="Panigl">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="J.S" surname="Schmitz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="P.S" surname="Smith">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="C.V" surname="Vistoli">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="Oct" year="2001" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="Route Flap Damping Considered Usable?" target="http://ripe61.ripe.net/presentations/222-101117.ripe-rfd.pdf">
<front>
<title>"Route Flap Damping Considered Useable"</title>
<author initials="C.P" surname="Pelsser">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="O.M" surname="Maennel">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="K.P" surname=" Patel">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author initials="R.B" surname="Bush">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="Nov" year="2011" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
<section anchor="app-additional" title="Additional Stuff">
<t>This becomes an Appendix.</t>
</section>
<!-- Change Log
v00 2006-03-15 EBD Initial version
v01 2006-04-03 EBD Moved PI location back to position 1 -
v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07 AH removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09 EBD Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
figure indent control. Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative
images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes problems). -->
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 16:25:09 |