Thanks a lot
I just submitted draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00
Ahmed
On 12/1/2015 9:52 AM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Dear RTGWG,
The poll has ended and there has been sufficient support to adopt the
draft as the working group document.
Authors, please republish as draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00
Cheers,
Jeff and Chris
From: rtgwg <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 17:47
To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, Chris Bowers <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[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]>
To: Clarence Filsfils <[email protected]>, Ahmed Bashandy
<[email protected]>, Prodosh Mohapatra <[email protected]>, "Pradosh
Mohapatra" <[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
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
