Hi Martin, Thanks for pushing this ahead.
Best regards -Pushpasis On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:43 PM Martin Vigoureux <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > thanks for the update, I'm pushing this forward. > Note that the quote for 8124 is not exactly that one but this can be > handled at a later stage. > > -m > > Le 2018-09-19 à 10:50, Shraddha Hegde a écrit : > > 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
