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