Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-11.txt

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 20 January 2017 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <pushpasis.ietf@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 35A2912952D for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:28 -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 451PHCQPLVnR for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x236.google.com (mail-yw0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::236]) (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 E4C00129721 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x236.google.com with SMTP id l19so64652867ywc.2 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:18 -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; bh=Ex+dZ/bsSCv2nkRPdo8BQvl+GCdwAjxKj3lC1U9FNDE=; b=Gq8rWEjIRP64qDXFMjjM0mLQf33ZHU5L7jRRfBp5Wf62b/nmslvBkHTSMfAYemKlpx yA4cWvThmbFfGMxPU0uvIKJG7K51ToGYsA/ZT8t4JqJ2EMW+2z4PvCGGswGcieKe5Yz+ t8CWyggHRVsNdHhjgr5fjyM7fk3abOtpoIhAHy11lAFICH59Ixg28cyWR+kUlBznQYaV NwvwITs7Q6NQeHW8rl+uZm3oSIxl1gYtQK+HScxG1WF3w09Un6uajwWHQO+fA8uEjEEf cxBBXv8I2o9nUlAyiE5ZlOINNgaCw6NnVotf0hvhsZHkzNUm4z6ykZF+qiRxq8pc3v93 l0aw==
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; bh=Ex+dZ/bsSCv2nkRPdo8BQvl+GCdwAjxKj3lC1U9FNDE=; b=HIm4H8Ge50vL5iwuYhEkG/iBMyiotTEtnzX/L4IM3GbcY/g/silJNPy6aURqqLZ9lK MSBZIQa+C3ZNsCv7p4VSKDJ7NkbUMeBRCc5xi7LYOLOKjOIJv3aye78Omg7tmXAbcKCI 3r4+Lg5mDKgZ6bXA2Mb7z3kNnIlj38sX9LCTKUDfV2rBa9yvS7YwOJKOZtutzW1WVGXR uKZyCX+xS0yLhE+EPM/6AUOfVPHBV25HkBn1ZM1e9ecKuqs6b2kdZGlrlTrQBjIevEdv URtKolFadii9i9d43oo1K/YmLlhV2AK17OUp4pF59DZYTEIwWFXRXbHj7wcXHnlAJviX QaTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJicpI3qBM0DtmrSLzUQjGOm/s6Vqzs65tnDXdMpHq+p4Kl7TwEB99HbtUKxXg4I+oRwIGxiyUuP8ZuLg==
X-Received: by 10.129.112.17 with SMTP id l17mr10272103ywc.62.1484882178029; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.197.138 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:16:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148488191100.10532.3985253513133519502.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148488191100.10532.3985253513133519502.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 08:46:17 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwkgHCor4s-6N3u+8pW+iw8XoPZ2N5RY32hH=cqdKovXtfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-11.txt
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0b26b8c142d005467e12d9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/6K-1Q4bVo4f5MuiRhx7wJp7PiwU>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 03:16:28 -0000

Hi RTGWG members,

I have uploaded another version of this draft addressing all the IESG
review comments received so far. Request you all review it once more and
let me know if you have any comments.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:41 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-11.txt
To: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>, Shraddha Hegde <
shraddha@juniper.net>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>, Hannes Gredler <
hannes@rtbrick.com>, Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-11.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pushpasis Sarkar and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Revision:       11
Title:          Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
Document date:  2017-01-20
Group:          rtgwg
Pages:          21
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection-11.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection/
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-
protection-11
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection-11

Abstract:
   The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
   specification guarantees only link-protection.  The resulting Remote-
   LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not guarantee node-
   protection for all destinations being protected by it.

   This document describes an extension to the Remote Loop-Free based IP
   fast reroute mechanisms described in [RFC7490], that describes
   procedures for determining if a given PQ-node provides node-
   protection for a specific destination or not.  The document also
   shows how the same procedure can be utilized for collection of
   complete characteristics for alternate paths.  Knowledge about the
   characteristics of all alternate path is precursory to apply operator
   defined policy for eliminating paths not fitting constraints.





Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat