Self-replying....what if the charter said something like "RTGWG focuses on IGP-based protection mechanisms which require no multihop explicit routing and which attempt to provide 100% failure coverage" or something along those lines?
'no multihop explicit routing' is deliberately intended to exclude not just TE LSPs but also static TP LSPs and whatever other explicit path steering mechanisms we come up with (IP Options? A zombie outbreak of CR-LDP?). It allows for the small bit of explicit routing that LFA does, picking an OIF not in the RIB. "attempts to provide 100% coverage" is to recognize that there are multiple solutions to the problem (LFA, MRT, whatever we come up with next). All can provide 100% coverage in the right topology, but some can't cover all scenarios; it may be that the scenarios which can't be 100% covered are not of interest to those who wish to deploy a particular technology. Language lawyering aside, does this seem like a reasonable approach? eric > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Osborne (eosborne) > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:20 AM > To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant); Sriganesh Kini > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Charter Update (Discussion) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Stewart Bryant (stbryant) > > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 7:09 AM > > To: Sriganesh Kini > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Charter Update (Discussion) > > > > > > Unfortunately whether MPLS is used in a particular network segment or > > not is a complex and sometimes emotive issue. > > > > If we decide that the best solution is to use MPLS we then face the > > issue of what to do about networks that decline to support MPLS. Do we > > declare non-MPLS networks out of scope for IPFRR, or do we work on > > another non- MPLS solution? > > I think you also have to wrestle with the opposite problem. If you declare > that convergence schemes which require MPLS to provide 100% coverage > are within scope, what exactly is out of scope? > > > > eric > > > > > - Stewart > > > > > > On 15/11/2011 22:29, Sriganesh Kini wrote: > > > IP is addressed via MPLS. If IP forwarding were to be used > > > exclusively, then it becomes complicated. With MPLS being extended > > > to more parts of the network than just the core, it seems that is > > > not as much of a concern. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Stewart Bryant<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> On 15/11/2011 21:36, Sriganesh Kini wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> I agree that having a solution with full coverage is very useful > > >>> because it removes the need for complicated analysis to determine > > >>> what is protected versus what is not (and worse, how that changes > > >>> as the topology change). But the solution has to be simple for it > > >>> to get deployed. > > >>> > > >>> One approach using MPLS that solves this using extensions to a > > >>> single protocol (LDP) is given in draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp. > > >> It the approach extensible to an IP context? > > >> > > >> Stewart > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> rtgwg mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > For corporate legal information go to: > > > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
