My comment to Loa precedes a discussion with Alia at IETF
and to be fair I do not know of any technical issue with the MRT
design.
Unlike LF and RLFA which are "local" to the point of repair, the
scope of MRT is domain wide, in other words MRT is introducing
a new partially ships in the night routing protocol. In my view, a
domain wide system has a higher barrier to entry than a local
repair system.
I have a concern that Loa's statement (a) only tells part of the
story. Whilst I understand there are two independent prototypes,
I understand that they are not two interworking prototypes since
they are based on different link state protocols. However I
understand (and it would be good to have this verified) that if
they are given the same topology they produce the same FIB.
To my mind this ranks it at "one and a half" independent
prototypes.
At the end of the day the utility of MRT depends on who is
interested in deploying it, and as far as I know, none of the
domain wide IPFRR solutions have made it into production networks.
If there are operators prepared to deploy MRT in their production
networks then obviously it is headed for the standards track.
If it is destined to join the ranks of the many "possible" domain
wide solutions, then it is clearly still at the informational/
experimental stage of its life.
Stewart
On 20/11/2014 18:17, Alia Atlas wrote:
Loa,
Without any hats on, I would note:
a) As far as I'm aware, this has seen two independent prototypes
implemented.
b) I have not heard any concrete technical concerns. Stewart and I did
specificallly
discuss MRT this past IETF. I am, of course, quite interested in
hearing any
concrete technical concerns.
c) I'd be happy seeing this question asked of more drafts :-)
Regards,
Alia
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Loa Andersson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Working Groups,
We have don an MPLS-RT of draft-atlas-mpls-ldp-mrt, the reviews
has been
posted to the mpls wg mailing list.
In his MPLS-RT review Stewart Bryant says:
"I have concerns about whether or not MRT technology has the maturity
expected in the standards track. However that decision needs to be
taken in RTGWG and MPLS needs to follow their and lead in determining
the fate and track of this draft. This draft should not be published
ahead of the drafts that define the technology that it is
supporting."
He also says that he see no reason not to go ahead and start the
poll to
see if we have consensus to adopt the document as an mpls wg document.
The question Stewart ask is valid, and we'd like input from the rtgwg
and rtgwg chairs (copied on this mail). We will also copy both the
poll for adoption and the wglc to the rtgwg mailing list.
/Loa
mpls wg co-chair
--
Loa Andersson email: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Senior MPLS Expert [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
<tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
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
