[mpls] RMR updates

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.kompella@gmail.com> Wed, 08 November 2017 21:13 UTC

Return-Path: <kireeti.kompella@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0F4B124E15 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:13:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2CMHfzXexIxV for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x230.google.com (mail-yw0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1FD3124B0A for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:13:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x230.google.com with SMTP id t71so3541576ywc.3 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:13:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Kx1o5n96vl0nBEQz3H+NkQzWTok/JrgJowRJ2A/pWYw=; b=XSn7wBAqWS5SZU87YN5W6jny74sZJKkwwD40lH1OiyosmaCizMyaL54VqazT6LQAY1 zJXKXX+qQo+7aR98rYsPm3grbmqwBBhSziRqNktbclT2N8O+9LOm09fGWxVBs7bNC6yr ZMgiSgqbzL57SksS8qsTIZx1wf5spQkViyOvjo9LcItM5Yu3jiQHnGG/FFjrzIoGQpxO PDW86ZznnCEXsi9hxcBsiUtelg0CkvsNkKa0zuZ3ZOHox8g25XJJ5cGNQhDRpLbhZV0n l711+uHd+c3NriIypRw5T+vTmRbggxTKieluyTRJP7LxjoX56O6YXpHr1Ykt2ut/Kaeo za5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Kx1o5n96vl0nBEQz3H+NkQzWTok/JrgJowRJ2A/pWYw=; b=BIZv92guyLNWOhTHr4+7mTpEcrUn9nJYSXIOtav5w5cKH+p0e4PHscNEdhWG4Q6kjz LXeeO4t+dGazEJdBgl46nsACO1t7xJDmQRPLmjgivWjtYFQMIA2Bc8fGAlEW3RQwwfgS exbHEfDVbmMJJSIawqVPhqYp51yHqDR+vIxohFC0cQ95EJOk0kNLbNLk7jzVY+Zi/sgw trn3kaZbeQT5lemg3htC/2/KEIBhyFigNqwLmHISqQOoVmJ3HMw4fSTiF0toIv820yBW m0oFE9hOHh4ZIsL0f+8GB8NHAT5oXT4HTzNX7/gQLsVs1nNibm25ts+OtEoRjtqFJTuB 9PiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX6Fd4XmT41gwWFlDrFuiN430YYSOYPEfqH+b0bVTWGqcWMDvpVx J8UdPcUtstAN9PCbJE4OOdATy02wCdrVh/M+KIA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QgIy7GQh8yzzzqgv0zMv24muXwDn8Fg5H2e5zWJDpZF94apRRQpqW8b/n49hXX5zo9mIT0qzRMrqW9hFBXpa0=
X-Received: by 10.37.183.6 with SMTP id t6mr1200652ybj.223.1510175619716; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:13:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.234.71 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:13:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti.kompella@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 13:13:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CABRz93VbAs6L-yo=WvibnujJfy_aW50qEbbTLszRCnJ5qBfRJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e08221adc5c9a52055d7f2982"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/_ElLP-xH7WaNKYBJVg0uFRFrZSQ>
Subject: [mpls] RMR updates
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 21:13:42 -0000

Hi All,

We'd like to move to last call on the RMR document, but first there are a
couple of loose ends we'd like to tie up, specifically, the "Advanced
topics" in the -05 version of the draft.

a) how should the RMR document deal with "half-rings"?

Consider the following half-ring:

    A    B
    |    |
    C----D

Here are some options:
i) the RMR document shouldn't concern itself with this case
ii) create a PW from A to B to complete the ring
ii) instead of creating N LSPs (in this case 4), only create LSPs from A to
B and from B to A.

b) how should the RMR document deal with protecting hub nodes?
i) not deal with it.
ii) use technology akin to PIC edge

We feel that it is important to address both these issues. We are
soliciting your response, either among the options suggested, or
potentially other ideas.

Thanks,
-- 
Kireeti