Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
"Robert Hanzl (rhanzl)" <rhanzl@cisco.com> Wed, 11 November 2015 07:44 UTC
Return-Path: <rhanzl@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589421B33CB for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 F0rZ8lL0zPUQ for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:44:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CA5C1B33CA for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 23:44:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11749; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447227859; x=1448437459; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=79UvkaR/NsKmLyDQIKOmD+byt8qNXam+UYUJSGczcnU=; b=C+ElOHD6UPzwa2VWtebWI13UXQ4BxUHT5iBrRoT7KSCj2Mf3Si9zbn66 OoAkeGo9URweyvN8MQdLjreWqueAsGH1bXKXLTVzw0Ltjz6wxTuIa5KBX G4OEgr8rSXKEbfC+52qG/1wi4xaH6DFRfRkZ/H2ZZQ6G9MX1ew6Pe1yFL s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AfAgAg8UJW/4wNJK1egztTbwaud49PAQ2BZRcBC4VtAoE+OBQBAQEBAQEBfwuENAEBAQQBAQFrFwQCAQgRAQIBAigHIQYLEwEDBggCBBOIGQMSDb88DYRbAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIZUghCCboJTgU5aDYMcgRUFhgsMhwSJLQGFHIYUBoFvgVtJg3eJNYUih1IBEQ4BAUKEBHIBhE6BBwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.20,274,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="49488720"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 11 Nov 2015 07:44:18 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (xch-rtp-001.cisco.com [64.101.220.141]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAB7iH5A007915 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:44:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:44:17 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 02:44:17 -0500
From: "Robert Hanzl (rhanzl)" <rhanzl@cisco.com>
To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
Thread-Topic: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
Thread-Index: AQHRHFTElh4gEnh3kUu3++kioImaJA==
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:44:17 +0000
Message-ID: <AD17927A-3729-47B0-AA48-71EF12AECBA0@cisco.com>
References: <20151110000559.13326.25820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56413977.1060100@cisco.com> <CAEGVVtBERGGhf9A0VS22UDUA4-Xnc9cRnECQw=JJzZgh3PX4gA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEGVVtBERGGhf9A0VS22UDUA4-Xnc9cRnECQw=JJzZgh3PX4gA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.55.160.185]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AD17927A372947B0AA4871EF12AECBA0ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/g-ZqwV2PkztFujcy_blOUekQCsc>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:44:21 -0000
Support adoption Robert On 11 Nov 2015, at 08:04, Shyam Sethuram <shyam.ioml@gmail.com<mailto:shyam.ioml@gmail.com>> wrote: Support adoption. There are mature implementations of this. thanks--shyam On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) <bashandy@cisco.com<mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>> wrote: Hi, This is the latest version of the BGP-PIC draft that was presented on Nov/2/15 during the IETF-94 meeting in Yokohama We have addressed the comments as follows: - Added statements in multiple places, including the abstract, indicating the need for more than one BGP path - Added example in Section 2.3.3 with illustrations in Figure 4,5,6 on how to handle a platform that does not support the required number of hierarchy levels. Section 4.3 explains the gradual degradation of BGP-PIC benefit as a result of the reduced platform support - For handling unlabeled traffic in case PE-CE failure, the last bullet in Section 4.2.2 indicates that an egress PE must always treat a core facing path as a backup path to avoid looping the packet in case of PE-CE link failure. The first statement in Section 5.1 indicates that the draft does not cover the failure of a CE node We would like to request adoption of the draft. Thanks Ahmed -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:05:59 -0800 From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org><mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> To: Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com><mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com>, Ahmed Bashandy <bashandy@cisco.com><mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>, Prodosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com><mailto:mpradosh@yahoo.com>, "Pradosh Mohapatra" <mpradosh@yahoo.com><mailto:mpradosh@yahoo.com> A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic Revision: 02 Title: Abstract Document date: 2015-11-09 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 26 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic/ Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 Abstract: In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging millions of routes, many routes are reachable via more than one path. Given the large scaling targets, it is desirable to restore traffic after failure in a time period that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. In this document we proposed an architecture by which traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. The objective is achieved through organizing the forwarding chains in a hierarchical manner and sharing forwarding elements among the maximum possible number of routes. The proposed technique achieves prefix independent convergence while ensuring incremental deployment, complete transparency and automation, and zero management and provisioning effort. It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of BGP-PIC are hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as ECMP or primary-backup. Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org<http://tools.ietf.org/>. The IETF Secretariat _______________________________________________ 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
- Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-b… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
- RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
- RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… bruno.decraene
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Loa Andersson
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Jon Mitchell
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Shyam Sethuram
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Robert Hanzl (rhanzl)
- RE: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Antoni Przygienda
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Stefano Previdi (sprevidi)
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Jeffrey Haas
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Derek Man-Kit Yeung (myeung)
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
- Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtg… Jeff Tantsura