IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Thu, 20 October 2016 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 181C212987F for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vHudS1GgWi60 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor35.orange.com [80.12.70.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F5361295CD for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) by opfednr20.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5C47B40B9D; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:33:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.59]) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1DE2F1A00C8; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:33:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM43.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::ec23:902:c31f:731c%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:33:40 +0200
From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
To: "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
Subject: RE: question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02
Thread-Topic: question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02
Thread-Index: AQHSKrD6JUg/qjcdlUq/UlHIIX+EB6CxRe2w
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:33:39 +0000
Message-ID: <7031_1476966820_5808B9A4_7031_144_4_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921DB269CE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <OF4AE091F6.5B59F0A7-ON48258052.00309A39-48258052.0031BC89@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF4AE091F6.5B59F0A7-ON48258052.00309A39-48258052.0031BC89@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921DB269CEOPEXCLILMA4corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/6h7-RcVHq9bk6PxGBMrOQSTKyQw>
Cc: "chen.minyu@zte.com.cn" <chen.minyu@zte.com.cn>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:33:44 -0000

Hi,

Achieving link up microloop avoidance with a local mechanism is only achievable by tweaking flooding (we need to converge locally, then flood local LSP update) which was not well received by the WG, that's why it was removed. The draft focus now on what has already been implemented by vendors and deployed in live networks.

Some other solutions like SR microloop avoidance will provide link up case at the "price" of having a SR-enabled network.

Brgds,

From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:03
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org; chen.minyu@zte.com.cn
Subject: question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02

Hi Stephane,

I find that section "4.4.2.  Link up event" of draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-04 has been removed.
Does it mean that there is no need for this?

Thanks,
Deccan

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email