Hi Hannes,
Good point! We will generalize the solution to cover
segment-routing (SR) too in the next - 05 revision.
Thanks,
Santosh
On 12/6/16, 3:17 AM, "Hannes Gredler" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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
