Hi, I support this document.
While this document does not describe “bytes on the wire”, IMO it’s useful to have a vendor independent description and terminology. While this is old stuff, this is (really) good stuff. (still, doing this 10 years ago would have been more valuable) I had read it and commented the week before the IETF. Ahmed has already updated it. (some follow up may still be required). Thanks -- Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:47 AM To: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Chris Bowers Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra; [email protected] Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Dear RTGWG, The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 as the working group document with Informational intended status. WG expressed support during the last RTGWG meeting (94) in Yokohama. Please indicate support or no-support by November 15, 2015. If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document. Cheers, Jeff & Chris From: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 16:25 To: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Chris Bowers <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Clarence Filsfils <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Pradosh Mohapatra <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Hi, This is the latest version of the BGP-PIC draft that was presented on Nov/2/15 during the IETF-94 meeting in Yokohama We have addressed the comments as follows: - Added statements in multiple places, including the abstract, indicating the need for more than one BGP path - Added example in Section 2.3.3 with illustrations in Figure 4,5,6 on how to handle a platform that does not support the required number of hierarchy levels. Section 4.3 explains the gradual degradation of BGP-PIC benefit as a result of the reduced platform support - For handling unlabeled traffic in case PE-CE failure, the last bullet in Section 4.2.2 indicates that an egress PE must always treat a core facing path as a backup path to avoid looping the packet in case of PE-CE link failure. The first statement in Section 5.1 indicates that the draft does not cover the failure of a CE node We would like to request adoption of the draft. Thanks Ahmed -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:05:59 -0800 From: <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> To: Clarence Filsfils <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Ahmed Bashandy <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Prodosh Mohapatra <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, "Pradosh Mohapatra" <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic Revision: 02 Title: Abstract Document date: 2015-11-09 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 26 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 Abstract: In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging millions of routes, many routes are reachable via more than one path. Given the large scaling targets, it is desirable to restore traffic after failure in a time period that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. In this document we proposed an architecture by which traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. The objective is achieved through organizing the forwarding chains in a hierarchical manner and sharing forwarding elements among the maximum possible number of routes. The proposed technique achieves prefix independent convergence while ensuring incremental deployment, complete transparency and automation, and zero management and provisioning effort. It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of BGP-PIC are hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as ECMP or primary-backup. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. The IETF Secretariat _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
