Re: TSV-ART review of draft-ietf-forces-interfelfb

[Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx>]

Hi, Jamal,

Focusing only on the portion needing continued feedback below.

Joe

On 6/17/2016 5:12 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your review - responses below:

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi, all,

I've reviewed this draft as part of the TSV Area Review Team, paying
special attention to transport-related concerns. Please take these as
any other IETF last call comments.

Joe

---

The document contains two different types of transport issues: its
relation to supporting transport traffic and the way it exchanges
information between the FEs.

...

 

The document uses Ethernet as a "transport", as stated in Sec 3.1.1. The
claim that this is "simpler" than using UDP would benefit from a few
sentences of substantiation, especially because Ethernet does not
support fragmentation, which has an impact on the solutions proposed in
Sec 5.1.1 (see below).

The reference point is the common deployment use cases; within a single

rack or network owned by one admin who does all the setup.

Any suggestion on wording you'd like to see?

from:

   o  The FEs are already interconnected using Ethernet.  We focus on
      Ethernet because it is a very common setup as an FE interconnect.
      While other higher transports (such as UDP over IP) or lower
      transports could be defined to carry the data and metadata it is
      simpler to use Ethernet (for the functional scope of a single
      distributed device already interconnected with ethernet).

To:

   o  The FEs are already interconnected using Ethernet.  We focus on
      Ethernet because it is a very common setup as an FE interconnect.
      Other higher transports (such as UDP over IP) or lower
      transports could be defined to carry the data and metadata, but
      these cases are not addressed in this document.

---