> On Dec 9, 2016, at 8:15 PM, Santosh Esale <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Stefano, > The main purpose of the solution is to provide > topology independent local protection using RSVP-TE in widely > deployed LDP based MPLS networks. Link protection is already > deployed using manually configured RSVP-TE one-hop LSPs. This > draft addresses node protection. > > > Now, the solution can also be used to protect segment routing > hop-by-hop node segments and we would add a note about it. > Of course, the other solution that you mentioned may fit > segment-routing too.
My point is that if you have SR in your network, it doesn’t make much sense to use an RSVP or LDP based solution. Thanks. s. > > Thanks, > Santosh > On 12/7/16, 1:30 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Santosh Esale <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Hannes, >>> Good point! We will generalize the solution to cover >>> segment-routing (SR) too in the next - 05 revision. >> >> >> I don’t think your solution brings anything better than what already >> covered in ti-lfa draft for segment-routing. See >> draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02. >> >> s. >> >> >>> >>> 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-iet >>>>> f- >>>>> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
