Re: discussion on fast notification work

Hi Andras,

Thanks for the email better describing the idea and scaling.

2011/7/7 András Császár <Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>:
> Alia,
>
> The problem is clear: how to do fast fail-over in IP and LDP with full failure coverage in
> arbitrary network topologies. Several other ongoing proposals are targeting the same
> problem (just to mention Not-Via or MRT). So, I think there is consensus that the problem
> needs solving.

Not-Via, MRT, and LFA are all mechanism for a router to do local
repair in response to a local failure.

This proposal is an effort to take the idea to the next step and
attempt to have all the routers converge to the new topology very very
quickly.

Converging very very quickly has the advantage of not having
micro-forwarding loops for long.  It also means there's no need for
fast-reroute, since everyone learns about and reacts to the failure
rapidly enough.

The scaling, computation, and speed are real concerns with this
approach.  I was quite interested to see your numbers.  Thanks for
doing that work.  One issue, of course, is that there is a large
installed base of routers that are not NP-based; I'm not sure of the
practicality there.

> Per-hop authentication should minimise the security implications considerably. We have been working on a prototype doing this with SHA256 and we are adding this to the draft now.

I look forward to it.

Alia

> Cheers,
> András
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org]
>> On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
>> Sent: 2011. július 7. 0:03
>> To: John E Drake
>> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: discussion on fast notification work
>>
>> John,
>>
>> Absolutely - I have not seen positive comments about this being a
>> problem that needs solving and have seen concerns about the security
>> implications.
>>
>> I would prefer to have any discussion about it here so that we do not
>> spend valuable f2f time on this unless there is significant interest.
>>
>> Alia
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM, John E Drake
>> <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:
>> > Alia,
>> >
>> > Is it okay for me to say that I think that this is a really
>> bad idea and that I was glad that interest in it had waned?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> >> Of Alia Atlas
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 1:57 PM
>> >> To: rtgwg@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: discussion on fast notification work
>> >>
>> >> The last 2 IETFs, we have had discussions about the idea of fast
>> >> notification, as described in
>> >> draft-lu-fast-notification-framework, draft-lu-fn-transport-00, and
>> >> draft-csaszar-ipfrr-fn-00.
>> >>
>> >> Since then, I have not seen substantial discussion or
>> interest on the
>> >> mailing list.  If you are
>> >> interested in this work, have questions about it, or would
>> like to see
>> >> RTGWG continue to discuss it,
>> >> please send email to this mailing list.  I'd like to see this
>> >> conversation happening here before IETF.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Alia
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rtgwg mailing list
>> >> rtgwg@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtgwg mailing list
>> rtgwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>