RE: fn-transport/ipfrr drafts

András Császár <Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com> Wed, 06 April 2011 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E333A68EC for <rtgwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.331, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XJh-8ZOCG0ND for <rtgwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3972B3A6874 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7c6dae0000023f2-a3-4d9c8d50d8f6
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 94.88.09202.05D8C9D4; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:57:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.133]) by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.90]) with mapi; Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:57:04 +0200
From: András Császár <Andras.Csaszar@ericsson.com>
To: "stbryant@cisco.com" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:57:02 +0200
Subject: RE: fn-transport/ipfrr drafts
Thread-Topic: fn-transport/ipfrr drafts
Thread-Index: Acv0XN90FuQoYpW5QGeB4T6zks8mbQAEpUqg
Message-ID: <8DCD771BDA4A394E9BCBA8932E83929720E74E496C@ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <0ED867EB33AB2B45AAB470D5A64CDBF60CAB204D66@EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se> <8DCD771BDA4A394E9BCBA8932E83929720E74AF21C@ESESSCMS0363.eemea.ericsson.se> <4D9C6784.2070307@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D9C6784.2070307@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: hu-HU, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: hu-HU, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:55:22 -0000

Hi,

In the appendix (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-csaszar-ipfrr-fn-00#appendix-A) we started to make some preliminary estimations on how much information is need to maintain failure specific backups for areas with 200 & 500 nodes with 500k routes. They were, we think, pretty worst case estimations.

We will check for 1000 node area size, too. And we got a suggestion not to overestimate the network diameter, which will result in much smaller numbers.

But it is clear that we need to answer more questions then just the backup database size. Further questions I mentioned in my previous emails.

BR,
András

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: 2011. április 6. 15:16
> To: rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: fn-transport/ipfrr drafts
> 
> Andras
> 
> To make sure that we are not talking at cross purposes, can 
> you let us 
> know what size of network that you anticipate applying this to?
> 
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>