IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

"Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com> Thu, 20 December 2012 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ginsberg@cisco.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 30F6521F8A57 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:46:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ayMzlBbEKQOn for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:46:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E636321F8838 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 00:46:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1748; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1355993166; x=1357202766; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=C7P6pwXk1sOQQwDScKrWOZcrBv6QIFyYPO4IvvYA++o=; b=Qq8iHnZfhL/vkglbL3kURpaEj1rFtdGxXZQ/6IY9hz6WC3vJVpEquhlU TaIgPhAq1g38Y2/79eGdW3ROTzBABDmapKJVGZRyEMp0ZpPMkl+hO7Eyp 3gOwEHyMmXpvKSmYGgHemTmnuci0d8hk0Jn6iDT23OMt75LWVw9CsVOCd Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAGrP0lCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEvWkWc4IeAQEBBDo/DAQCAQgOAwQBAQEKFAkHMhQJCAIEDgUIiAu4fYxNg2JhA6ZSgnSCIg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,322,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="155000941"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2012 08:45:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBK8jmao032253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:45:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.159]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:45:48 -0600
From: "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
To: Rob Shakir <rjs@rob.sh>
Subject: RE: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00
Thread-Topic: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00
Thread-Index: AQHN3PsKvHqQTvO58E6YBKTfi80fmZghYkWQ
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:45:47 +0000
Message-ID: <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F1318DEAD@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <09877446-5980-40C1-A067-8B08A8693D47@juniper.net> <50C8A278.6080203@cisco.com> <985BF299-1BB7-4B35-9795-842F1781DF12@juniper.net> <50C8B203.2070503@cisco.com> <712_1355408500_50C9E474_712_170_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A117B82@PEXCVZYM11.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <50C9E552.9020100@cisco.com> <3BD75937-F06A-43F1-9164-C7A356B81F4E@rob.sh> <F3ADE4747C9E124B89F0ED2180CC814F13145D22@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <9834E26F-02B7-4926-B34A-FE50C44D5C58@rob.sh>
In-Reply-To: <9834E26F-02B7-4926-B34A-FE50C44D5C58@rob.sh>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.121.62]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 08:46:07 -0000

Rob -

So long as the WG is in agreement that what we are discussing is simply "best practice" - and that there is no interoperability issue - then I think we should have little trouble converging on text which is agreeable to everyone.

   Les

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Shakir [mailto:rjs@rob.sh]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 12:38 AM
> To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
> Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-
> rtgwg-remote-lfa-00
> 
> Hi Les,
> 
> Apologies for the delay in responding.
> 
> On 13 Dec 2012, at 22:33, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Frankly, I find the discussion of a preference algorithm in selecting the
> endpoint address as useful/interesting - but much more appropriate for a
> vendor deployment guide than a normative specification. Vendors often are
> faced with idiosyncratic deployment constraints from their customers which
> need to be accommodated. In which case responsive vendors will provide
> various knobs to allow override of default behavior - while retaining the
> ease of "zero config" for the majority of customers. This is simply good
> business. We should not attempt to "standardize" this.
> 
> I agree that there are likely to be a variety of requirements, and I am not
> saying that we need a MUST in this document - but some guidance to
> implementors on this kind of deployment consideration is always useful from
> my perspective (some guidance as to what *could* be best practice, tends to
> result in a higher probability that different vendor's kit actually
> interoperates with each other).
> 
> Cheers,
> r.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email