IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Mon, 04 December 2017 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60675124B0A for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:22:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 IEYeZiKg6FaP for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (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 6B7BB1200C1 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:22:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f143so3497498itb.0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:22:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QFMSVJPW/moIrg69rH8Hpn9i02ylDOl1pc0Lud+OGMY=; b=DBiHbvIHTZjVFbQ08xxJu+yEo1OEIUsaRljGsKnfcRm9/8dcTb4kgJfNWvdssn6f43 +JerSGFg0krO8SFUtBdaEKOxEukfGcrtPBJNa/ISp+ljuIhNnww3a1mWjL2LvU+WfLr5 XNnCsG1581ILUtSbjCxiUiykVITA7OcLy1FPPsNicFENBaWy/13PBIzJHLWYWtSIQ57F x74QUrKB713ZL4PvKQHFtcXT0ChgzbsUn0qZoOhCNCreCeROFYTtkMAdUQyRj1jH+pIQ DN9BMNhCbBfabH3/4xrq5C2cOYRrI1Upx8Ah4JIYZ5WBu1ICSxR74u1X20Q5bjqvTE6U Un1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QFMSVJPW/moIrg69rH8Hpn9i02ylDOl1pc0Lud+OGMY=; b=A1uvMHStTLOil/EiYo9lqxN/DDn3nVxAWO6BBgnZtCKzjvAHEuGyIFgJ41E5UaoPlI J2SHa1sQMJF5RkMEv/svUEMxXl0sgsib80M2hpT7jV4IBIu5rVKi9boJw5LpB346Xv5l A+6mDckccL3d0SW4ttBIDq8czXtUX6p7dqjT47og0Dj2QouJTFFS25PWQt966l4D7+Kz tFuUXiyvMK6Hw+58dSoeGFT14WHrJt2jomfSJ99c6hoIwLtRTYxF7ektnDEDdUZp6n7c GhHfAc9917IMDVL/WzPTGWz0J4MVWoHSlz2IOQarXeca/QYshSUM921a/NCh3QUkCDh9 K6Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4KWd6RznzbeDTJO4JChcJ8IrW8xurT4rJo63ojRXlE501aSIVN LCh/yFdiZRh2tJJg5omdZTHBy74mCtcmJbD+7q8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMYBYLHRdLXXEmkMJ6F4Wqb1680cgotTS2WQZVFPs8OS8T45eXFuCTPkmIZ8SO+j35Nfujbr5isDX1SD8p2bE2Y=
X-Received: by 10.107.136.167 with SMTP id s39mr21622439ioi.169.1512361333787; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 20:22:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.2.134.37 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 20:22:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <524395714.4958786.1511888332678@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <CAKz0y8wLYjkSO486w5WpSuDYV3Cjvgkv6887o9-Ky9o_ViWMrQ@mail.gmail.com> <210606893.1211556.1511362363266@mail.yahoo.com> <CAKz0y8xeYnqOjLxADVwndtOp8QQaPeQBiAO2TtnCi6pYfebONA@mail.gmail.com> <5A1D50E5.7030302@cisco.com> <CAKz0y8xsM975vAUj4PFf0Lpx=5R4_yyAkpyOsHMvWfhM-sgKJg@mail.gmail.com> <524395714.4958786.1511888332678@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 09:52:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8z9Q3CDrpy9cui1cor+LiPaFLjj5546FOOjrg-tqC1orw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Protecting SR policy midpoints (draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa)
To: "sasha@axerra.com" <sasha@axerra.com>
Cc: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113eba3c1292f1055f7c10dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/5oFHrJ7FPQpcEZc7f64NcXc7WdA>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:22:16 -0000

Thanks for the pointer
to ​draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths. Agree it describes
local protection for SR-TE paths better..

But, just wondering whether the data plane complexity is worth compared to
provisioning disjoint end-to-end SR-TE backup path together with S-BFD..

Regards,
Muthu

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Alexander Vainshtein <vinesasha@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Muthu,
> Please take a look at
> ​​
> draft-hegde-spring-node-protection-for-sr-te-paths that provides accurate
> descriprion of the requured DP behavior in the standard terms
> (context-specifuc label spaces and context-identifying labels).
>
> My 2c.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:54, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal
> <muthu.arul@gmail.com> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email