IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Remote LFA

"Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 12 October 2011 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.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 3DF8C21F8AFE for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WhEIy4Vtqc7J for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5378E21F8A56 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.63]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p9C5UkvV021244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:30:46 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.41]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.63]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:30:46 +0200
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Sriganesh Kini <sriganesh.kini@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 07:30:44 +0200
Subject: RE: Remote LFA
Thread-Topic: Remote LFA
Thread-Index: AcyIU2GOdYvxL8FWQvyAgk4Sr2aIogATFrmg
Message-ID: <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD9BC8@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4E946A07.80403@cisco.com> <14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD9B44@FRMRSSXCHMBSB1.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAOndX-sJ7OEbSfRtYygY5xaz6ZpHpMfipidt_dLOSP-ELo3cnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOndX-sJ7OEbSfRtYygY5xaz6ZpHpMfipidt_dLOSP-ELo3cnw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: nl-NL, en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_14C7F4F06DB5814AB0DE29716C4F6D671ADD9BC8FRMRSSXCHMBSB1d_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83
Cc: "imc.shand@googlemail.com" <imc.shand@googlemail.com>, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <stbryant@cisco.com>, "So, Ning" <ning.so@verizonbusiness.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 05:30:54 -0000

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] On Behalf Of Sriganesh Kini
Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 22:21
To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Cc: Clarence Filsfils; rtgwg@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; 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