hi santosh, just curious why the proposed solution is constrained to only use LDP ?
IMO what you have suggested here would just fit nicely for protecting segment-routing node labels as well. segment routing node-labels are "calculated" in a similar fashion than LDP labels as such my guess would be that this solution applies to SR node labels as well. suggest to generalize it to: "Fast Reroute for Node Protection in hop-by-hop based LSPs" thanks, /hannes On 12/5/16 20:59, Santosh Esale wrote: > Hello Everyone, > We have presented the draft > - draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr – in > MPLS working group in three IETF meetings including the latest one at Seul. > However, as the draft is of interest to routing working too, we are > initiating this > thread to solicit feedbacks from the routing working group. Please let > us know > your comments. > > Presentations - > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-mpls-3.pdf > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-mpls-3.pptx > https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-mpls-08-ti-frr-ietf-97-00.pptx > > Thanks, > Santosh (on behalf of authors) > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
