Hello authors, Thanks for writing up the draft. I have couple of questions/clarifications.
1. Section 1 mentions head-of-line blocking and connection migration but does not quantify or reference any measurement. 1. In Section 4.4.2, the draft states: "For Statistics Report message (regardless of whether it can get AFI/SAFI or not), since it may be a periodic message with low load, and different statistics may have some correlation. So it SHOULD always be carried over the control channel to maintain better atomicity of all statistics." I believe, the control channel is defined as a single bidirectional Stream 0 for the entire BMPoQUIC connection, and there is only one control channel, shared across all peers. If so, will not it reintroduces serialization bottlenecks? e.g. If a router has 500 BGP peers each sending periodic Statistics Reports, all of them are serialized on Stream 0. A large burst of stats from many peers could back up the control channel, potentially delaying Peer Up/Down notifications and Initiation/Termination messages. Additionally, the "low load" assumption may not hold at scale, since RFC 7854 allows Stats messages to contain many counters and at scale across hundreds of peers, the aggregate volume may not be trivially small. With many WG drafts adding Stats Type, this will further increase counter volume in future. Hence, a natural improvement would be to allow Stats to go separate channel, and optionally, go on Per-Peer common function channel. -thanks, Aseem
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
