Re: [mpls] Fast Reroute for Node Protection in LDP-based LSPs

[Santosh Esale <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

On 12/13/16, 1:09 AM, "mpls on behalf of Stewart Bryant"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

>Isn't the point here to decouple the end point calculation and
>collection of axillary data from the method of  path instantiation?
This draft decouples the building blocks - calculating merge point
and instantiating a path (LSP) to the merge point - that are needed
for node protection and that entail obvious benefits.

>Given that you know the repair endpoints and the additional information
>needed to forward the packet from the repair endpoint how you
>instantiate the repair is another matter.
>
>Whether an operator wants to use RSVP or SR is up to them.
>
>Something that I would note is that RSVP and strict source routing allow
>the operator to pick any path of their choosing, but as far as I can see
>the loose source routing option requires the complexity of the
>calculation of a path that is congruent both before and after
>convergence to prevent the repair path falling apart during convergence.
yes. 
These points capture the difference between this and ti-lfa draft.


Thanks,
Santosh
>
>- Stewart
>
>
>On 09/12/2016 19:15, Santosh Esale wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>             The main purpose of the solution is to provide
>> topology independent local protection using RSVP-TE in widely
>> deployed LDP based MPLS networks. Link protection is already
>> deployed using manually configured RSVP-TE one-hop LSPs. This
>> draft addresses node protection.
>>
>>   
>> Now, the solution can also be used to protect segment routing
>> hop-by-hop node segments and we would add a note about it.
>> Of course, the other solution that you mentioned may fit
>> segment-routing too.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Santosh
>> On 12/7/16, 1:30 AM, "Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 6, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Santosh Esale <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Hannes,
>>>>           Good point! We will generalize the solution to cover
>>>> segment-routing (SR) too in the next - 05 revision.
>>>
>>> I don’t think your solution brings anything better than what already
>>> covered in ti-lfa draft for segment-routing. See
>>> draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-02.
>>>
>>> s.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Santosh
>>>>
>>>> On 12/6/16, 3:17 AM, "Hannes Gredler" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi santosh,
>>>>>
>>>>> just curious why the proposed solution is constrained to only use
>>>>>LDP ?
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO what you have suggested here would just fit nicely for protecting
>>>>> segment-routing node labels as well. segment routing node-labels are
>>>>> "calculated" in a similar fashion than LDP labels as such my guess
>>>>> would
>>>>> be that this solution applies to SR node labels as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> suggest to generalize it to:
>>>>> "Fast Reroute for Node Protection in hop-by-hop based LSPs"
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> /hannes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/5/16 20:59, Santosh Esale wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>                            We have presented the draft
>>>>>> - draft-esale-mpls-ldp-node-frr – in
>>>>>> MPLS working group in three IETF meetings including the latest one
>>>>>>at
>>>>>> Seul.
>>>>>> However, as the draft is of interest to routing working too, we are
>>>>>> initiating this
>>>>>> thread to solicit feedbacks from the routing working group. Please
>>>>>>let
>>>>>> us know
>>>>>> your comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presentations -
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-mpls-3.pdf
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-mpls-3.pptx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-mpls-08-ti-frr-i
>>>>>>et
>>>>>> f-
>>>>>> 97-00.pptx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Santosh (on behalf of authors)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rtgwg mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtgwg mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>_______________________________________________
>mpls mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls