Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt

Support adoption.

-Jon

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:47 PM, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear RTGWG,
> 
> The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 as the working group document with Informational intended status. 
> 
> WG expressed support during the last RTGWG meeting (94) in Yokohama. 
> Please indicate support or no-support by November 15, 2015.
> 
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been received from each author and each individual that has contributed to the document.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jeff & Chris
> 
> From: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com>
> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 16:25
> To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
> Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is the latest version of the BGP-PIC draft that was presented on Nov/2/15 during the IETF-94 meeting in Yokohama
> We have addressed the comments as follows:
> - Added statements in multiple places, including the abstract, indicating the need for more than one BGP path
> - Added example in Section 2.3.3 with illustrations in Figure 4,5,6 on how to handle a platform that does not support the required number of hierarchy levels.  Section 4.3 explains the gradual degradation of BGP-PIC benefit as a result of the reduced platform support
> - For handling unlabeled traffic in case PE-CE failure, the last bullet in Section 4.2.2 indicates that an egress PE must always treat a core facing path as a backup path to avoid looping the packet in case of PE-CE link failure. The first statement in Section 5.1 indicates that the draft does not cover the failure of a CE node
> 
> 
> We would like to request adoption of the draft.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ahmed
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:	New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
> Date:	Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:05:59 -0800
> From:	<internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> To:	Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <bashandy@cisco.com>, Prodosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com>, "Pradosh Mohapatra" <mpradosh@yahoo.com>
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic
> Revision:	02
> Title:		Abstract
> Document date:	2015-11-09
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		26
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02
> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02
> 
> Abstract:
> In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging millions
> of routes, many routes are reachable via more than one path. Given
> the large scaling targets, it is desirable to restore traffic after
> failure in a time period that does not depend on the number of BGP
> prefixes. In this document we proposed an architecture by which
> traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a
> timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. The
> objective is achieved through organizing the forwarding chains in a
> hierarchical manner and sharing forwarding elements among the maximum
> possible number of routes. The proposed technique achieves prefix
> independent convergence while ensuring incremental deployment,
> complete transparency and automation, and zero management and
> provisioning effort. It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of
> BGP-PIC are hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as
> ECMP or primary-backup.
> 
>                                                                                   
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg