Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt

["Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks a lot

I just submitted draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00

Ahmed

On 12/1/2015 9:52 AM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Dear RTGWG,
>
> The poll has ended and there has been sufficient support to adopt the
> draft as the working group document.
>
> Authors, please republish as draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff and Chris
>
> From: rtgwg <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 17:47
> To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Chris Bowers <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of 
> draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
>
> Dear RTGWG,
>
> The authors have requested the RTGWG to adopt 
> draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 as the working group document with 
> Informational intended status.
>
> WG expressed support during the last RTGWG meeting (94) in Yokohama.
> Please indicate support or no-support by November 15, 2015.
>
> If you are listed as a document author or contributor please respond 
> to this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant 
> IPR. The response needs to be sent to the RTGWG mailing list. The 
> document will not advance to the next stage until a response has been 
> received from each author and each individual that has contributed to 
> the document.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff & Chris
>
> From: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 16:25
> To: Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Chris Bowers 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc: "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Clarence Filsfils <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, Pradosh Mohapatra <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt
>
> 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: 	<[e-mail]>
> To: 	Clarence Filsfils <[e-mail]>, Ahmed Bashandy 
> <[e-mail]>, Prodosh Mohapatra <[e-mail]>, "Pradosh 
> Mohapatra" <[e-mail]>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>