*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 12:48 PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu;
rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
Your
draft :)
Ahmed
*From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 12:48 PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu;
rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-se
PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu;
rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
Your answer did not address the issue below, which is one of a class
of issues related
handy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu; rtgwg@ietf.org
Cc: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
Your answer did not address the issue below, which is one of a class of issues
related to SRLG.
- Stewart
On 07/08/2017
Your answer did not address the issue below, which is one of a class of
issues related to SRLG.
- Stewart
On 07/08/2017 19:23, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote:
See my reply to Sikhi
Thanks
Ahmed
On 8/7/2017 2:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 07/08/2017 06:45, Sikhivahan Gundu wrote:
5 August 2017 01:19
*To:* Sikhivahan Gundu ; rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
HI,
All members of the same SRLG group are assumed to fail if one of them
fails.
Going bac
See my reply to Sikhi
Thanks
Ahmed
On 8/7/2017 2:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 07/08/2017 06:45, Sikhivahan Gundu wrote:
By “ambiguity”, I meant that backup calculation taking SRLG into
account is based on speculated topology, whereas computation of
post-convergence path, ie, SPF,
t expectation for SRLG?
Thanks,
Sikhi
*From:*Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) [mailto:basha...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* 05 August 2017 01:19
*To:* Sikhivahan Gundu ; rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-
On 07/08/2017 06:45, Sikhivahan Gundu wrote:
By “ambiguity”, I meant that backup calculation taking SRLG into
account is based on speculated topology, whereas computation of
post-convergence path, ie, SPF, is based on actual topology. This
seems needs reconciling since in TI-LFA the bac
m]
Sent: 05 August 2017 01:19
To: Sikhivahan Gundu ; rtgwg@ietf.org
Cc: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
HI,
All members of the same SRLG group are assumed to fail if one of them fails.
Going back
HI,
All members of the same SRLG group are assumed to fail if one of them fails.
Going back to you example
- L1 is in the same SRLG group as the primary link while L2 is belongs a
different group
- Hence if the primary link fails, only "L1" will fail and L2 will not
- Hence only L2 is candidat
Hi,
The draft mandates using "post-convergence path" as the backup path.
It states one advantage, among others, of doing so as follows:
"This .. helps to reduce the amount of path changes and hence service
transients: one transition (pre-convergence to post-convergence) instead
of two (pre
12 matches
Mail list logo
