On 07/10/2013 09:59, [email protected] wrote:
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
That is a issue for Mike to consider.
- 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.
There are clearly only two solutions to this, either permit TLDP on any
likely LSR, protected with an ACL if you wish, and accept the cases that
fail as being a minority concern, or two (and out of scope for this
draft) get the LSRs to advertise TLDP willingness in the IGP.
* 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
We can certainly discuss the issue, but I am reluctant to specify a
heuristic in an IETF draft, because then it is a specification and not a
heuristic.
- 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.
Hopefully this can be an informative ref, but we can include some simple
text that notes that it is up to the implementer how they need to make a
trade-off between minimum cost and minimum compute.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, hope to get some work done on
this draft at the end of this week.
- Stewart
"
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.
--
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
