RE: IPR call for draft-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

Hi, I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR. --Bruno From: rtgwg On Behalf Of Yingzhen Qu Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 6:02 AM To: RTGWG ; rtgwg-chairs Subject: IPR call for draft-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa Hi, Orange Restricted This is an IPR call for

RE: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-12

Thanks Ahmed. Looks good to me. --Bruno From: Ahmed Bashandy [mailto:abashandy.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2021 2:34 AM To: DECRAENE Bruno INNOV/NET ; rtg-...@ietf.org; Prodosh Mohapatra ; cfils...@cisco.com Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org;

RE: New rtgwg WG Co-Chair

Definitely +1 Regards, --Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:58 PM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: New rtgwg WG Co-Chair Chris, Thank you for all your hard work and many years of service as RTGWG chair. Yingzhen,

RE: IPR check on draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR. Thanks, Best regards, --Bruno > -Original Message- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 9:30 PM > To: slitk...@cisco.com; abashandy.i...@gmail.com; cfils...@cisco.com; > pierre.franc...@insa-lyon.fr;

RE: WG adoption poll for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR. Thanks, Regards, --Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2018 4:30 PM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: WG adoption poll for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa RTGWG, Jeff and I think it

RE: Request for RTGWG Working Group adoption for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

Please see inline [Bruno2] From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 3:29 PM On 12/07/2018 10:49, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Stewart, Please see 1 comment inline [Bruno] Trimming the text to ease the focus on

RE: Request for RTGWG Working Group adoption for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

Sasha, Please see inline [Bruno] From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 1:59 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN Cc: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-...@ietf.org; daniel.vo...@bell.ca;

RE: Request for RTGWG Working Group adoption for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

Sasha, Please see inline [Bruno] From: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 1:26 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN Cc: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-...@ietf.org; daniel.vo...@bell.ca;

RE: Request for RTGWG Working Group adoption for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

Stewart, Please see 1 comment inline [Bruno] Trimming the text to ease the focus on this point From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 2:40 PM On 09/07/2018 20:53, Ahmed Bashandy wrote: […] b. Selecting the post-convergence path (inheritance

RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro, Thanks. -10 has just been uploaded. 2 changes, applying text we discussed in email: - default timers values are added - slightly reworded definition of “Routing table computation” Htmlized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo Diff:

RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Alia, On my side, I’m waiting for Alvaro’s answers on our reply and propositions https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/RcOpRdFVQUrwUS9NZxUdH8VmJo4 > It would be excellent to have this approved before Weds at IETF 101. +1 > I am happy to approve an updated draft being submitted, if

RE: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Spencer, I've just found out that, for some reason, my email reply to your review had been stuck in my email outbox for 10 days and hence never reached you. Sorry for this and thanks for your patience. (and for still reading all other threads while waiting for you answer) Thanks for your

draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-09

Hi all, -09 addresses the comments from Deborah as part of the IESG review. Changes are mostly editorials: - the name of the algo has been changed to "SPF Back-off Delay algorithm" - the unnecessary term "abstract" have been removed on a few occasions - the following sentence has been removed as

RE: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Deborah, > From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:db3...@att.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 6:23 PM > Hi Bruno, > > Inline- > > Quick summary - thanks for the proposed changes. You do need to pick "one" > algorithm name for > this document. I will wait to clear once Alvaro's

RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro, Please find below a follow up on one point > From: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 11:44 AM [...] > > -Original Message- > > From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:03 AM [...] > >

RE: Deborah Brungard's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS)

Hi Deborah, Please see inline > -Original Message- > From: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A [mailto:db3...@att.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 12:48 PM > > > Hi Acee, > > I think Alvaro is on vacation this week without email access. As I noted in > my Discuss, I support >

RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi Mirja, Please see inline [Bruno] > From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:i...@kuehlewind.net] > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 3:45 PM > > Hi Bruno, > > please see inline. > > > Am 26.02.2018 um 15:12 schrieb > : > > > >

RE: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with COMMENT)

Eric, > From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:38 AM > To: The IESG > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-a...@ietf.org; Uma Chunduri; > rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; > uma.chund...@huawei.com; rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: Eric Rescorla's No Objection on

draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08.txt

Hi all, -08 addresses the comments received from directorates and IESG reviews. Changes are editorials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08 Note that there is an editorial error in the

RE: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Alvaro, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline [Bruno] Also -08 has just been posted https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-08 > -Original Message- > From: Alvaro

RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07: (with COMMENT)

Mirja, Thanks for your review and comments. Sorry for the 1 week delay. Please see inline [Bruno] > -Original Message- > From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:36 PM > > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following

RE: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-07

Hi Elwyn, Acee, Thanks for your review and comments. Please see inline [Bruno] > -Original Message- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 1:31 AM > To: Elwyn Davies; gen-...@ietf.org > Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo@ietf.org;

RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Hi Chris, I’m not aware of any IPR. Brgds, --Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 8:19 PM To: RTGWG Cc: rtgwg-chairs Subject: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement RTGWG, This email starts the two

RE: RTGWG WGLC draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo

Jeff, all I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR. Thanks, Regards --Bruno > -Original Message- > From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 4:41 PM > To: RTGWG > Cc: rtgwg-chairs; draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-a...@ietf.org > Subject: RTGWG

RE: IPR call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa

Hi chairs, all I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR. Please note that 2 IPR had been disclosed on the individual version of this document https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft=draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa which are not disclosed on

RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-06.txt

No change, just a refresh. > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-06 Regards, --Bruno > -Original Message- > From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > internet- >

FW: IPR Disclosure Cisco's Statement about IPR related to draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

FYI -Original Message- From: IETF Secretariat [mailto:ietf-...@ietf.org] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 6:33 PM To: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-...@ietf.org Cc: ali...@cooperw.in; ipr-annou...@ietf.org Subject: IPR Disclosure Cisco's Statement about IPR related to

RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

I agree with Chris. In addition, this document is likely/may be referenced by RFC defining FRR solutions. Having it STD track would avoid downward normative references. --Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 6:48 PM To: Acee

RE: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:37 AM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: WG last call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay In section 3 it states: This ordered convergence, is similar to the ordered FIB proposed defined in

RE: Early RTG-DIR review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-04

Hi Sasha, Many thanks for your careful review. Your comments have been constructive, useful and helped clarifying the draft. Thanks for this. We have updated the draft as per your comments. We believe that -05 address all your comments. If it does not, please comment back. Draft:

RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Les, > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) [mailto:ginsb...@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, > April 18, 2017 5:56 PM > > Bruno - > > The discussion here is a pragmatic one. That would be good indeed. > As draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo is a Standards track document the > implication of it

draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement

Changing the subject of the thread. Hi Les, As a follow up on the discussion > From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:56 AM > > In regards to the discussion regarding " > draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement" I am > quoted as saying: > > " Les: most of the

FW: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02

Hi, SPRING WG is currently running a last call on draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-msdc-02. [1] That document describes the motivation and benefits for applying segment routing in BGP-based large-scale data-center. Hence it is related to RTGWG's RFC 7938 "Use of BGP for Routing in

RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-04.txt

Hi all, Just a refresh, with some typo corrections. -- Bruno > -Original Message- > From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > internet- > dra...@ietf.org > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 4:01 PM > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org >

RE: SPRING WGLC for draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-cases

John, I'm not aware of non-disclosed IPR on this use-cases/requirements document. Thanks -- Bruno > -Original Message- > From: John G. Scudder [mailto:j...@juniper.net] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 4:44 PM > To: spr...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-spring-resiliency-use-ca...@ietf.org > Cc:

RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-04

Hi Jeff, Chris, I’m not aware of non-disclosed IPR. And support as co-author. Thanks -- Bruno From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 7:18 AM To: RTGWG Cc: rtgwg-chairs; draft-psarkar-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-...@ietf.org Subject: Request for WG adoption

draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo-03

Hi all, The draft has been significantly updated: - many editorial corrections; - the SPF delay algorithm is now described as a state machine, which is easier to read, check and implement; - we have a new co-author. Thanks Chris. Diff:

RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00

Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide

RE: progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-backoff-algo

Hi Chris, all That's a good and reasonable question. Please find below my personal feedback. I think we can identify 3 parts in the draft: a) A SPF delay b) A uniform SPF delay within an AS/area c) A specific math formula to determine the delay a) A SPF delay Adding a

RE: progress of draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay

Stewart, all, Multiple incremental cost changes also bring some disadvantage as it turns 1 IGP event into N IGP events. This is an additional cost for process/applications triggering computations in response to an IGP event. e.g. BGP, FRR, some IGP loop free convergence techniques,

RE: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-09

Chris, Thanks for considering my comments and taking them into account. Looks all good to me. 1 point inline [Bruno] as you explicitly asked for feedback. Bruno > From: Chris Bowers [mailto:cbow...@juniper.net] > Sent: Saturday, February > 06, 2016 2:21 AM > > Bruno, > > Thanks for the

RE: RTGWG adoption call for draft-acee-rtg-yang-key-chain

Support. Regards, Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 6:53 PM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Cc: rtgwg-chairs; draft-acee-rtg-yang-key-ch...@tools.ietf.org Subject: RTGWG adoption call for draft-acee-rtg-yang-key-chain Dear RTGWG,

RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt

Hi, I support this document. While this document does not describe “bytes on the wire”, IMO it’s useful to have a vendor independent description and terminology. While this is old stuff, this is (really) good stuff. (still, doing this 10 years ago would have been more valuable) I had read it

RE: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt

Hi Ahmed, Thanks for your answer. First, to clarify, IMO the BGP PIC architecture is a clever solution which addresses a real problem that had to be solved. Then I’m not commenting on the architecture itself but on the draft. Finally, I don’t think that we have technical disagreement. It’s more

RE: Mail regarding draft-decraene-rtgwg-backoff-algo

Mike, Many thanks for your review and very useful comments. We agree with them and we’ll obviously take them into account in the next revision. Please see 2 comments inline. [Bruno] From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike Shand Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 12:15 PM To:

RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement and draft-decraene-rtgwg-backoff-algo

Hi Jeff, Chris, all Support. Having different SPF-delays across the IGP domain increases micro-loops probability and/or duration. We don't need this, especially when the IGP is experiencing instability (i.e. when SPF back-off algorithm kicks in). Hence having a common SPF back-off procedure is

RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt

Chris, Please see inline. [Bruno] From: Chris Bowers [mailto:cbow...@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 6:43 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Alia Atlas; Robert Kebler; gabor.sandor.eny...@ericsson.com; andras.csas...@ericsson.com;

FW: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt

Re-sending... From: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 3:00 PM To: 'Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)' Cc: pierre.franc...@imdea.org; Alia Atlas; Robert Kebler; gabor.sandor.eny...@ericsson.com; andras.csas...@ericsson.com; jeff.tants...@ericsson.com; ru...@riw.us;

FW: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt

Re-sending as my previous email was apparently too big. ( too big to fail does not work for email ;-) ) From: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 12:24 PM To: 'Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)' Hi Anil, Please see inline [Bruno] From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)

RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt

Hi Chris, authors, Comparing IP FRR methods is a difficult task... The choice of metrics (of comparisons) is difficult and for some (solution, metric) the evaluation is very topology dependent. That being said, it would be interesting to add another metric, related to the quality of the

RE: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-05.txt

Hi Chris, Thanks for the addition. Please see inline some comments. [Bruno] Thanks, Regards, Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Chris Bowers Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 3:10 AM To: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL); Alia Atlas; Robert Kebler;

RE: Working Group last call on draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability - IPR

Jeff, Alvaro, I'm not aware of non disclosed IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability Thanks, Regards, Bruno -Original Message- From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:54 AM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject:

RE: MINIMIZE BACKOFF SPF two technical points

Hi Antoni, Thanks for your feedback. More inlined. From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antoni Przygienda Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:06 PM As first, I'm supportive for the work I think it's of solid applicable value Thank you. albeit it's strictly not IETF

RE: WG review for draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc

Support. Wouldn't GROW be a better home than RTGWG? -Original Message- From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Petr Lapukhov Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 7:31 PM To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: WG review for draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc Hi, Authors of

RE: On minimizing SPF backoff induced blackouts

Hannes, all From: Hannes Gredler [mailto:han...@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:07 PM [...] trying to synchronize RIB/FIB update across different CPUs/routing- stacks/vendors/load conditions is a battle that can never be won. The thread has somewhat diverge. For the record,

RE: On minimizing SPF backoff induced blackouts

Hi Hannes, Many thanks for the slides: quite interesting and to the point. Very useful. More inline. From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Gredler hi RTGWG, some old presentation from Dave Katz on backoff and timing.

RE: On minimizing SPF backoff induced blackouts

Russ, Can every vendor sign with blood that their implementation and system are properly designed for all situations ... unfortunately (for us) I don't think so :) Which is why this would be a good BCP -- both for vendors and providers. I'm not sure to exactly see your point. So let me

RE: On minimizing SPF backoff induced blackouts

We don't need consistency between different AS/providers. We need consistency within a given AS, across vendors. Correct -- but a BCP isn't just for inter-AS, it's also for intervendor. Good. #Ref A BCP for existing _parameters_ do not solve the problem if we have different

RE: On minimizing SPF backoff induced blackouts

I'm willing to be persuaded, I just don't see the argument for specifying an algorithm with what's been put on the table to this point. Ok. So I guess my presentation/draft was not clear enough. Let me try again. In slide 5: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-2.pdf - do

RE: On minimizing SPF backoff induced blackouts

Hi Hannes, hi bruno, IMO the problem that you're trying to solve is to have the routers still being responsive when multiple events are happening in the network. wouldn't then a simple fix be to kick the SPF pacing logic at a much more later point in time ? - i.e. rather than slowing

RE: draft-decraene-rtgwg-backoff-algo-00.txt

Hi all, Today's presentations have triggered many interesting feedback and comment (which is good, many thanks for your time) but time has not allowed discussing all the comments (a) nor summarizing the feedbacks (b). Regarding a), could you please post your additional comments on the list?

RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-03.txt

Hi Stéphane, Please see 1 point inline Hi Stéphane, Looks good, thanks. I have a question related to object ipFrrAltType loopFreeRemote (4), -- remote loop free alternate loopFreeTunnel (5), -- loop free alternate using a configured tunnel loopFreeRemote :

RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-ip-mib-03.txt

Hi Stéphane, Looks good, thanks. I have a question related to object ipFrrAltType loopFreeRemote (4), -- remote loop free alternate loopFreeTunnel (5), -- loop free alternate using a configured tunnel loopFreeRemote : remote LFA as described in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa

RE: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr

Hi Alvaro, Many thanks for your in depth review of the draft. It has been really helpful to improve the document. We have just published v04 which should address your comments. Please find below the answer to each of your comments. Ice, Bruno --- However, I think that the organization can

RE: IPR Claims related to draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay

Hi Alvaro, I am not aware of any other IPR claims than the one already mentioned. Best regards, Bruno From: rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alvaro Retana (aretana) Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 3:41 PM To: draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-de...@tools.ietf.org Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org

RE: WG Adoption Call for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection

Hi authors, This is an interesting work, thanks for the draft and the rtgwg presentation. 1) Regarding node protection, have you considered/evaluated the use of the algorithm proposed in TI-LFA (draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa)? Namely: computing the backup path with a (C)SPF

RE: WG Adoption Call for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection

Hi Pushpasis, Please find some comments inline with [Bruno] Thanks, Bruno From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:psar...@juniper.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 6:12 PM To: DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN; draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protect...@tools.ietf.org Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana (aretana)

RE: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

In LDP networks, I see 2 problems and 2 goals. 2 problems: - T-LDP (TL): finding an IP address of the PQ to set up the T-LDP session - TUnnel end point (TU): finding an IP address of the PQ useable as tunnel end point. And 2 goals: - A short term goal is to maximize (80% ?) the ability of the

RE: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

Peter, From: Peter Psenak Hannes, On 12.12.2012 17:05, Hannes Gredler wrote: in favor of explicit advertisement, i'd rather do 3 rules here : 1. PQ node OSPF router-id, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ node itself 2. PQ node TE adress, if it is advertised as /32 prefix by the PQ

RE: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

Peter, From: Peter Psenak [mailto:ppse...@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:25 PM Bruno, On 13.12.2012 15:21, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote: Peter, From: Peter Psenak Hannes, On 12.12.2012 17:05, Hannes Gredler wrote: in favor of explicit advertisement, i'd rather do 3