Regarding LFA's for Multi homed prefixes handling document
Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com> Thu, 20 July 2017 15:53 UTC
Return-Path: <uma.chunduri@huawei.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 78CF91252BA; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 hhcHeIiSHimh; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E70E812EC46; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DRQ63388; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:53:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:53:14 +0100
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.240]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 08:53:11 -0700
From: Uma Chunduri <uma.chunduri@huawei.com>
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa@ietf.org>
Subject: Regarding LFA's for Multi homed prefixes handling document
Thread-Topic: Regarding LFA's for Multi homed prefixes handling document
Thread-Index: AdMBbzG/M6m1uHYmQJGYNGPtBZQX9w==
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:53:10 +0000
Message-ID: <25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A3192C@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.65.242]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_25B4902B1192E84696414485F572685401A3192CSJCEML703CHMchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020203.5970D1EB.0160, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.5.240, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 4bae3d5861ca30ce14ce34999510e602
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/ByDfQxFyC31tCS-H0ZHKRlooMcY>
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: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:53:19 -0000
Dear RTGWG & Chairs, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-01 specifies a simplified and elaborate approach to compute LFAs for multi-homed prefixes. In this sense it thoroughly expands and updates Section 6.1 of RFC 5286 (the base LFA specification). It also clarifies misc. topics (IGP_MAX_METRIC and MT handling) from RFC 5286. So based on the comments/discussions we had on this topic we intend update the document to say it updates RFC 5286 and changed the intended status. Please let us know if you have any questions/concerns on this. Thanks in advance. -- Uma C. (on behalf of all co-authors)
- Regarding LFA's for Multi homed prefixes handling… Uma Chunduri