Martin,
I have fixed the typos and also added more description to clarify a few items.
Pls see details
Section 4.2 (and subsections) is (are) a bit difficult to
read/understand because of the typos but also because of the way it's
written.
Section 4.2.1.
Do you mean ECMP FRR rather than simply ECMP (as section 4.2.3. seems to
suggest)?
If so, please take this into account while addressing typos listed below.
[Pushpasis] 4.2.1 is for ECMP. ECMPs do not count as alternates. These rules
cover all scenarios but related to alternates only.
But, I will let Shraddha confirm that..
<shraddha> Fixed the text to read "ECMP FRR"
Sections 4.2.2., 4.2.3., and 4.2.5, seem to be linked to 4.2.1..
Wouldn't it be better to switch 4.2.4. and 4.2.5.? Alternatively can't
these three sections in fact be subsections of 4.2.1 ?
[Pushpasis] Shraddha can you take look and let us know if that is okay.
<shraddha> Thanks for the suggestion. Chaged the paraphasing sections to
subsections of 4.2.1
Although Sections 4.2.2., 4.2.3., and 4.2.5 seem to paraphrase 4.2.1., I
read one sentence which does not appear in the pseudo algorithm:
If there are two ASBRs with different type2 cost, the higher cost
ASBR is pruned.
So I am not sure to understand when this condition/action comes into
play. Could you clarify?
[Pushpasis] Again will let Shraddha comment on it.
<Shraddha> Added more description to "type 1 type 2 cost" section.
Pls check if it looks better.
Section 4.2.4
It is not clear which inequalities will apply in that case.
<Shraddha> Added statement to clarify the inequalities to be used.
In the same way as above, Section 4.2.5 seems to say a more than Step 5
of the pseudo algorithm. Could you clarify when the extra conditions it
describes come into play? Or said differently, shouldn't step 5 be
reworked to be more complete? If you do so, please rework that step
incorporating the types of changes/rephrasing I have suggested for the
other steps (see typos below).
<Shraddha> Updated step 5. pls check.
1a. if primary ASBR and alternate ASBR are intra area
non-backbone path go to step 2.
do you mean "belong to" rather than "are"?
<shraddha>if primary ASBR and alternate ASBR are intra area
and belong to non-backbone go to step 2.
2. If cost type (type1/type2) advertised by alternate
ASBR same as primary
Do you mean:
2. Compare cost types (type1/type2) advertised by alternate ASBR and
by the primary ASBR
[Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look.
<shraddha> Fixed
3. If cost type is type1
3a. If cost is same, program ECMP and return.
3b. else go to step 5.
Do you mean:
3. If cost types are type1, compare costs advertised by alternate ASBR
and by the primary ASBR
3a. If costs are the same then program ECMP and return.
3b. else go to step 5.
[Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look.
<Shraddha> Fixed
4 If cost type is type 2
4a. If cost is different, skip alternate ASBR and
consider next ASBR.
4b. If type2 cost is same, proceed to step 4c to compare
compare type 1 cost.
4c. If type1 cost is also same program ECMP and return.
4d. If type 1 cost is different go to step 5.
Do you mean:
4 If cost types are type2, compare costs advertised by alternate ASBR
and by the primary ASBR
4a. If costs are different, skip alternate ASBR and
consider next ASBR.
4b. If cost are the same, proceed to step 4c to compare
compare type1 costs.
4c. If type1 costs are also same program ECMP and return.
4d. If type1 costs are different go to step 5.
[Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look.
<shraddha> Fixed
While selecting alternate ASBR for loop evaluation for LFA, these
rules should be applied and ensured that the alternate neighbor does
not loop the traffic back.
I'm not sure about the meaning of the latter part of that sentence ("and
ensured ...")
[Pushpasis] Shraddha, please take a look. I think it means.. "... these rules
should be applied and to ensure that the alternate neighbor does not loop ..."
<shraddha> fixed the text
I have posted -07 version.Pls take a look and let me know if you have further
comments.
Rgds
Shraddha
-----Original Message-----
From: Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:02 PM
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]>; Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR)
<[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; rtgwg-chairs
<[email protected]>; Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>; RTGWG
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06
Martin,
Apologise missing the e-mail from Pushpasis.
I'll look at the comments and update the draft in a day or two.
Rgds
Shraddha
-----Original Message-----
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:25 PM
To: Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; rtgwg-chairs
<[email protected]>; Stewart Bryant <[email protected]>; RTGWG
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AD review for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-06
Hi Martin,
I am extremely sorry. I forgot to follow up with co-authors on this. Buried
with day job. I will try to close it with co-authors at the earliest possible.
Best regards,
-Pushpasis
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 9:33 PM Martin Vigoureux <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Authors,
>
> am I right in thinking that the ball is still in your camp and you
> need Shraddha to look at some of the comments?
> The draft has been in Revised I-D Needed for 5 months now.
>
> -m
>
> Le 2018-06-19 à 11:00, Pushpasis Sarkar a écrit :
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > Once again sorry for the delay. Please find answers to some of your
> > points inline.
> >
> > Hi Shraddha,
> >
> > Please find attached the XML draft for the next revision with
> > changes taken care by Uma and myself. Please add your changes and
> > reply back on the comments on OSPF sections that I have requested
> > you to take look at
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
