IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Remote LFA

"So, Ning" <ning.so@verizon.com> Wed, 12 October 2011 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ning.so@verizon.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 A0A9221F8BE7 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o3cEA07Go-yA for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:38:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fldsmtpe03.verizon.com (fldsmtpe03.verizon.com [140.108.26.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6608E21F8BBF for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: false
Received: from unknown (HELO fldsmtpi03.verizon.com) ([166.68.71.145]) by fldsmtpe03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2011 14:38:54 +0000
From: "So, Ning" <ning.so@verizon.com>
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.69,334,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="157152784"
Received: from fhdp1lumxc7hb02.verizon.com (HELO FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com) ([166.68.59.189]) by fldsmtpi03.verizon.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2011 14:38:40 +0000
Received: from FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com ([169.254.1.133]) by FHDP1LUMXC7HB02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.59.189]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:38:40 -0400
To: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>, Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:38:39 -0400
Subject: RE: Remote LFA
Thread-Topic: Remote LFA
Thread-Index: AcyIU2GOdYvxL8FWQvyAgk4Sr2aIogATFrmgABMOH8A=
Message-ID: <6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC08F27A3DB@FHDP1LUMXC7V41.us.one.verizon.com>
References: <4E946A07.80403@cisco.com> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD9B44@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAOndX-sJ7OEbSfRtYygY5xaz6ZpHpMfipidt_dLOSP-ELo3cnw@mail.gmail.com> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD9BC8@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD9BC8@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6665BC1FEA04AB47B1F75FA641C43BC08F27A3DBFHDP1LUMXC7V41u_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "imc.shand@googlemail.com" <imc.shand@googlemail.com>, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "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: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:38:58 -0000

I agree.  Operators have been holding back the deployment of LFA because of those reasons Wim stated.   Remote LFA solves those problems.  It should help to speed up the LFA deployment in the field.


Best regards,

Ning So
Verizon Corporate Technology
(office) 972-729-7905
(Cell) 972-955-0914


From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:31 AM
To: Sriganesh Kini
Cc: Clarence Filsfils; rtgwg@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; imc.shand@googlemail.com
Subject: RE: Remote LFA

I still believe remote LFA has more merits for the service providers who deploy LFA and want to increase the coverage. It is not about SRLG or not. It is about coverage and remote LFA has the benefits that is re-uses operational procedures which are in place in service providers networks today. So extending them is better than introducing a complete new scheme.

From: sriganeshkini@gmail.com<mailto:sriganeshkini@gmail.com> [mailto:sriganeshkini@gmail.com]<mailto:[mailto:sriganeshkini@gmail.com]> On Behalf Of Sriganesh Kini
Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 22:21
To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Cc: Clarence Filsfils; rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; imc.shand@googlemail.com<mailto:imc.shand@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote LFA

About related work -

At the last IETF we presented draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp that addresses additional cases where besides using a primary LSP to a remote LSR such that traffic does not loop back, it handles SRLG as well.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Clarence yes I saw this in the last IETF and i believe this has a lot of value

-----Original Message-----
From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org> [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Clarence Filsfils
Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 18:09
To: rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; imc.shand@googlemail.com<mailto:imc.shand@googlemail.com>
Subject: Remote LFA

Please find the following submission complementing the LFA technology:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shand-remote-lfa-00.txt

It drastically extends the coverage of LFA while keeping its simplicity.

Cheers,
Clarence
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg



--
- Sri

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email