Re: thoughts on draft-bryant-shand-ipfrr-notvia-addresses-00.txt

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Naiming,

One concern is what precisely is gained by this extension.  It seems to be 
removing the overhead of the additional LDP sessions & adding in the 
assumption that the LDP labels are allocated per-platform.

There are also timing issues - such as what is the delay in obtaining the 
new information & the effect of using the old.  For instance, does a 
neighbor N, on receiving a label withdraw from its neighbor R, send an 
immediate label release or wait until all routers that N has forwarded R's 
label to have released it?

Another is what does S do when it detects that the LDP session to N is 
down?  Say there is a single link from S to N which has an untargeted LDP 
session on it.  When the link fails, if it's POS, MPLSCP will also go down 
- triggering the session to be torn down.  At the same time, traffic may be 
forwarded, using labels learned from N, to N's neighbor R.  When/how are 
those labels invalidated?

Alia

At 11:55 AM 5/16/2005, Naiming Shen wrote:

>Loa,
>
>Check out the MPLS mailing list archive April 2004 with
>subject of "discussion on nexthop fast-reroute drafts".
>I posted the mail first on the list asking for two drafts,
>
>draft-shen-nhop-fastreroute-00.txt
>draft-shen-mpls-ldp-nnhop-label-00.txt
>
>to be adopted as the working group document in mpls-wg.
>there were some syntax comments and some IPR dicussions
>followed. the IPR issue should be fixed and we also
>posted version-1 drafts after that. I can post the
>new versions and start the discussion again.
>
>thanks.
>- Naiming
>
>Loa Andersson said the following on 05/16/2005 04:03 AM:
>>Naiming,
>>could you give me the pointer to "the last time" you are
>>refereing to. I find "the latest" in the reference to this
>>from the Seoul meeting. There were two question posed, do
>>we want to take LDP there and will it actually achieve
>>what the authors claim. Both questions were left for
>>further discussion on the MPLS mailing list. As far as
>>I remember this discussion has not taken place.
>>/Loa
>>Naiming Shen wrote:
>>
>>>Loa,
>>>
>>>Last time the issue was with the wording of IPR statement in the
>>>previous version of NNHOP LDP draft, we plan to refresh the
>>>document in the mpls wg soon.
>>>
>>>thanks.
>>>- Naiming
>>>
>>>Loa Andersson said the following on 05/02/2005 12:55 AM:
>>>
>>>>Mike,
>>>>
>>>>actually the Naimings draft did not go anywhere when discussed in the
>>>>MPLS wg, this change to LDP would have to be taken up in the mpls again.
>>>>
>>>>/Loa
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>2.      Explicit tunnels are needed, which means that targeted LDP 
>>>>>>sessions are necessary to have this support LDP traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. In the case of node protection we could also using Naiming's 
>>>>>scheme of next-next hop LDP advertisement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Rtgwg mailing list
>>>>[e-mail]
>>>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
>>>
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rtgwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg



_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg