IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 20 October 2016 12:51 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.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 67D83129526 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klNBnj_UDMps for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x232.google.com (mail-qt0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39EDA129485 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x232.google.com with SMTP id s49so52062231qta.0 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=V2ImfUfWMAxM95znsDA5mIqzFWYUNKbfAvE+1RaCFbQ=; b=Qea7xb8oTuHHOntrB/Wp7so1OIdl2cJYh7Ixjuydeq+2nLcwzastixQN7CYIHYKU0q uKazkj7uFs3D2818/4m2bwwoCjPXDzNNToQu/wh04hvEbx1mjF7AXf9ODwp7APKQiZiN 02x/XrphkwVXCf0xoqrr3NKz/Gsitehg3Bd+SzFl85XnIflDdJUNopxnG09KtBsL253V +0Wg5fifhm0/xhMx9W3OYFPiD6ZMYYxC/CUMjM/WNlICZ/jR7Qb3Y1LXX7mcN0sM5Wru gAoWu44z46UJ+B+8ZnOGt79mE0EmIybqKlA6idEF9Ond8IODRJ5CZpoTv9uSf1OUaw+d rfsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=V2ImfUfWMAxM95znsDA5mIqzFWYUNKbfAvE+1RaCFbQ=; b=STWVe9gLXQDSDyfrpiOymo2AXgytEXRzMJpMGDJ2/A4hseYqt4iClCDdets908s4L/ ggjPZPaM9ndG6GaaDePrQhCoBlxcPgxyLbZiKqDd0o2Jx8Rm8SgsndcForf3Mp0vwA0o 5rdUdaPfpup532F+kxZYXMzBBMESH8n0jjviCfCwSlx5MIZt4SExeop+mPWdxWA6Cfre u8KO7pN27kjtVdMgqGSRyCR5Ak0gl334AYEbJ2TVzaQnGM9Git0WEyOhhyU28DpbF2EC 0PIeIbofLoXc80/UC764YFGMInRby3KhCRsfJUlE/QYEYkH38A+Bl1d+O126UVWGOlmX 5IcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rnab4LJYvFuYhZi2kNRayuahqBhyIdQp+Dz/pojT9nflL2SB0rEcy1Grj3HLygjKQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.128.143 with SMTP id b137mr334233wmd.95.1476967893775; Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.127] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm78512110wjw.14.2016.10.20.05.51.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Oct 2016 05:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, "peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn" <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
References: <OF4AE091F6.5B59F0A7-ON48258052.00309A39-48258052.0031BC89@zte.com.cn> <7031_1476966820_5808B9A4_7031_144_4_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921DB269CE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e17550d-65bb-c697-cbb3-bb82fc12af71@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:51:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7031_1476966820_5808B9A4_7031_144_4_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921DB269CE@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------18D4833F53AC4189FBC8F8A9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/fYYaXZQO8Vn1EkJtp04a1LgbpFk>
Cc: "chen.minyu@zte.com.cn" <chen.minyu@zte.com.cn>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 Oct 2016 12:51:37 -0000


On 20/10/2016 13:33, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Achieving link up microloop avoidance with a local mechanism is only 
> achievable by tweaking flooding (we need to converge locally, then 
> flood local LSP update) which was not well received by the WG, that’s 
> why it was removed. The draft focus now on what has already been 
> implemented by vendors and deployed in live networks.
>

If it is in live networks, can you share with us how well it works, and 
what, if any, disruption you see under link up.

> Some other solutions like SR microloop avoidance will provide link up 
> case at the “price” of having a SR-enabled network.
>

You can do link up with SR, but SR is not required by all methods.

Stewart

> Brgds,
>
> *From:*peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn [mailto:peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:03
> *To:* LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS
> *Cc:* rtgwg@ietf.org; chen.minyu@zte.com.cn
> *Subject:* question about draft-ietf-rtgwg-uloop-delay-02
>
> Hi Stephane,
>
> I find that section “4.4.2.  Link up event” of 
> draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-04 has been removed.
> Does it mean that there is no need for this?
>
> Thanks,
> Deccan
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email