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

Folks,

Yes this is a useful document, we should go ahead and publish it.

/Loa

On 2015-11-10 11:21, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> I support this document on the Informational track. BGP PIC is a useful
> mechanism for speeding convergence and this describes many of the use
> cases in the context of a conceptual forwarding plane implementation.
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on
> behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
> <mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM
> To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com
> <mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net
> <mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>>
> Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com <mailto:mpradosh@yahoo.com>>,
> Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
>
>     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
>     <mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>>
>     Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 16:25
>     To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
>     <mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>, Chris Bowers
>     <cbowers@juniper.net <mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>>
>     Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org
>     <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com
>     <mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com>>, Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com
>     <mailto: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
>