Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

Ahmed,

The WG decides what is in or out of scope for a WG draft, and it does 
this via the rough consensus of the WG, not the view of the authors.

Of course if you wish to refocus this as an independent draft and submit 
via the ISE. If you do, you are welcome and I will leave you to it.

Meanwhile the draft really has to discuss SRLGs are they are in real 
life, not as you would wish them to be.

Another type of false SRLG btw is when you are doing node protection 
(you normally treat a node as an SRLG), but only a line interface has 
failed.

- Stewart

On 07/08/2017 21:04, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote:
>
> Stewart
>
> I already replied to Sikhi explaining the concept of the SRLG used in 
> this draft and the intent to make it even clearer.
>
> IMO the scope of the draft is very clear from the draft itself as well 
> as the numerous responses during the previous IETF and the mailing list.
>
> The issue below is **out of scope** of the draft and hence I have no 
> plans on addressing it.
>
> I hope you don’t insist on pushing out-of-scope topics down the throat 
> of this draft :)
>
> Ahmed
>
> *From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 12:48 PM
> *To:* Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu; 
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> *Cc:* rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org; pfrpfr@gmail.com
> *Subject:* Re: I-D Action: 
> draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
>
> Your answer did not address the issue below, which is one of a class 
> of issues related to SRLG.
>
> - Stewart
>
> On 07/08/2017 19:23, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote:
>
>     See my reply to Sikhi
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Ahmed
>
>     On 8/7/2017 2:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>         On 07/08/2017 06:45, Sikhivahan Gundu wrote:
>
>             By “ambiguity”, I meant that backup calculation taking
>             SRLG into
>
>             account is  based on speculated topology,  whereas
>             computation of
>
>             post-convergence path, ie, SPF, is based on actual
>             topology.  This
>
>             seems needs reconciling since in  TI-LFA the backup is by
>             definition
>
>             the post-convergence path, with a single path-transition
>             after
>
>             link-failure as the intended outcome. Do I understand
>             correctly that
>
>             the draft prefers to relax that expectation for SRLG?
>
>
>         Yes, that is a good point, in the event of an incomplete failure
>         of an SRLG, there may not be congruence between the
>         FRR path and the post convergence path. This certainly
>         needs further study.
>
>            *
>         A--------//---------B
>         |                   |
>         |  *                | cost 2
>         C-------------------D
>         |                   |
>         |                   | cost 100
>         E-------------------F
>
>
>         AB + CD in same SRLG
>
>         TiLFA path is ACEFDB
>
>         Post convergence path is ACDB
>
>         In this case I think that the impact is just more SR hops in the
>         repair path than might be needed without the SRLG, but we do
>         need to
>         be sure  that there are no pathological  cases in
>         topologies that lack the proposed congruence, and as
>         Sikhivahan notes this effect does need to be clarified in the
>         text.
>
>         - Stewart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     rtgwg mailing list
>
>     rtgwg@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>