Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09.txt

Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 23 December 2016 19:07 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 2E57A12007C for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:07:23 -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 rVIOL3teYpLu for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x233.google.com (mail-yw0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::233]) (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 DDC6E120725 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x233.google.com with SMTP id r204so133562820ywb.0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:07:19 -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=BBPRuibMvY2qmg+JNNqn3v9suz3BXhwjD5+3LxiMOT4=; b=pliiGwpk0i8ltgbzyH4wzoBTyGnzCHbD9GKuKLOZdr15nfIeczguK6154VVMof8xKY 8K6yuiia3zr5O5/ijQDQtX0AO+YS1P11EOmd/pSihnZQeDxD3d3vNyHT4njpUWyi4Dpl Uq/enq07Tfdd75ezCIuglKYhm5INxiSYfIXUjteh0ciQq5E0g3n04dp2m/T2qLGW11Mg oaZmLZmqx33xuUZk6F3miTHwt0GjNnDqkMRJF7mI5cgSGMs2YxUOxylNjzYdzHLJbegi SpLZk1mjD1B1K2WltOMrEeQgUsBYG4pd5nFBv5P4reXPBnJMvC6ymmz1gyWM6j9To8oD 85Ig==
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=BBPRuibMvY2qmg+JNNqn3v9suz3BXhwjD5+3LxiMOT4=; b=NB7wuKRB6bZY4KjES89jFNyEiSV0UG2sYIUOlsL/9e8CfOiQD14b+HIydIdpbayqOl aEhiiVs7Ju4vNRmPMXPjTBg7SulyVWu7XrTlNTDPjSWiwlIzBLnDVP4V6MHdfLcAFb6t hpeRkZWfI2kY2NFQkevl/SGCuduufvnLA2pXUHzBj8ZWaov5MiGsdT/hQgZuW4+4XYOI 7/40QUUImAFrC82voAFnHcLZUhX7YGp5tuVPc8EXDksXSpGs27fYUQNCnNBosHlIse0J GArMDDTw2YGRDsNqA8uonXR+Ht9klf78I6HPEIsHEmhLcZu+ebLWXf2Dbvc9gDpYtnQK +Kug==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL4rj+lpZr5tUvsCJYaokFOQEjYSes3GAi5pVmozpujYabEFhEzI9vze8yS2baG2QJSnr0cKzOUMEAM0g==
X-Received: by 10.13.222.133 with SMTP id h127mr12363223ywe.329.1482520038913; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:07:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.216.82 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:07:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148251981234.16812.12516754070874976722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148251981234.16812.12516754070874976722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Pushpasis Sarkar <pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 00:37:18 +0530
Message-ID: <CAEFuwkhbH68mFTz2rCLqH8+OizKoqC5h+PYh1xGXZoHutAr+hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09.txt
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c07cfb84abad405445818ea"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/9nVb2I8aXMnL6c4cviWX3w8D3sg>
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, 23 Dec 2016 19:07:23 -0000

Hi RTGWG members,

As suggested by Alia as part of the AD review, I have added a new section
on how to compute node-protecting R-LFA paths for destinations with
multiple ECMP primary nexthops, and uploaded the 09 version.

Request you to review the same and let us know your feedback and comments.

Thanks and Regards,
-Pushpasis


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 12:33 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-09.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-09.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pushpasis Sarkar and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:           draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Revision:       09
Title:          Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
Document date:  2016-12-23
Group:          rtgwg
Pages:          20
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection-09.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-09
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection-09

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 utilised 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