RE: Remote LFA

[András Császár <[e-mail]>]

Please don't forget IPFRR-FN which is actively being investigated, too. :-)

If one is not aiming for 100% coverage, then there is LFA the coverage of which can be improved significantly with network tweaking (e.g. cost optimisation).

András


________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: 2011. október 12. 16:54
To: So, Ning
Cc: [e-mail]; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); [e-mail]; Sriganesh Kini
Subject: Re: Remote LFA

When RTGWG had this same discussion a number of years ago, the consensus was that we wanted a solution that provided 100% coverage.  At the time, of course, we were discussing both PQ (of which Remote LFA is a subset) and U-turn alternates.

Now, we have two options that provide 100% coverage - NotVia, which has proved too heavy-weight, and MRT, which is being actively investigated.

I don't believe that the requirements and reasons for 100% coverage that were made a few years ago have changed.

Alia

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM, So, Ning <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I agree.  Operators have been holding back the deployment of LFA because of those reasons Wim stated.   Remote LFA solves those problems.  It should help to speed up the LFA deployment in the field.


Best regards,

Ning So
Verizon Corporate Technology
(office) 972-729-7905<tel:[phone]>
(Cell) 972-955-0914<tel:[phone]>


From: Henderickx, Wim (Wim) [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:31 AM
To: Sriganesh Kini

Cc: Clarence Filsfils; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Remote LFA

I still believe remote LFA has more merits for the service providers who deploy LFA and want to increase the coverage. It is not about SRLG or not. It is about coverage and remote LFA has the benefits that is re-uses operational procedures which are in place in service providers networks today. So extending them is better than introducing a complete new scheme.

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]]<mailto:[mailto:[e-mail]]> On Behalf Of Sriganesh Kini
Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 22:21
To: Henderickx, Wim (Wim)
Cc: Clarence Filsfils; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote LFA

About related work -

At the last IETF we presented draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp that addresses additional cases where besides using a primary LSP to a remote LSR such that traffic does not loop back, it handles SRLG as well.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Clarence yes I saw this in the last IETF and i believe this has a lot of value

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Clarence Filsfils
Sent: dinsdag 11 oktober 2011 18:09
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote LFA

Please find the following submission complementing the LFA technology:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shand-remote-lfa-00.txt

It drastically extends the coverage of LFA while keeping its simplicity.

Cheers,
Clarence
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg



--
- Sri

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg