Hi Stewart,
Here are some old comments you didn't provide on feedback on :
"Regarding remote LFA draft, I would hope to see some points addressed in the
draft before going to WGLC.
- It would be good to add some simulation results about how much TLDP session
are required (TX and TX+RX), this in order to make people aware on how much
rLFA may impact their TLDP session scaling
- We already raised the point some months ago about possibly "interop" issues
in the following cases :
* PLR choose a PQ which is not able to accept TLDP session : we verified it
in a lab, and we can clearly fall into such situation in a live network,
leading to protection not available.
* PQ having multiple IP addresses /32 attached, so which one would be used
to establish TLDP session ? Current implementations are using some heuristics
and it would be good to document this
- Current text states that rLFA is computed only when LFA are not available and
our analysis pointed that this is really not a good idea as in term of
manageability rLFA alternate may be better than LFA alternate. It would be good
that rLFA draft points to potential manageability issues and refers to the
appropriate draft.
"
Thanks
Stephane
Stephane Litkowski
FT/OF/DTF/DEX/DERX/EE IP/TAC ENTREPRISE
Operational Engineering & Support IPTAC for RAEI network
Orange Expert Network of Future
tél. +33 2 23 28 49 83
mob. +33 6 37 86 97 52
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de
Stewart Bryant
Envoyé : mercredi 2 octobre 2013 13:26
À : Alvaro Retana (aretana)
Cc : [email protected]; rogeriomariano; [email protected]
Objet : Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-02.txt
I will try to get a new version out this week or next.
I plan to put in the algorithm text, although having discussed
this with Mike, our inclination is to include this as an
appendix since it is not required for interoperability that
you do the computation that way.
I will look at the issues left unresolved and any comments
posted in response to this email.
I see no reason to request a slot at IETF88 unless there remain
technical issues that we are unable to resolve on this list.
- Stewart (as duty editor of the draft)
On 01/10/2013 15:40, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
On 10/1/13 10:31 AM, "rogeriomariano"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Rogerio:
Folks, Does anyone know whether the draft deal will be treated in the IETF 88?
We haven't started working on the agenda yet, so it is perhaps too early to
talk about whether this draft will be discussed in Vancouver or not.
In the meant time, if you have comments or questions on the draft, please post
them to the list.
Thanks!
Alvaro.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
