Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-bgp-frr-vector-label-00.txt
Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net> Sat, 21 July 2012 17:27 UTC
Return-Path: <robert@raszuk.net>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B14E21F8565 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H9y-tJpAw5IO for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1310.opentransfer.com (mail1310.opentransfer.com [76.162.254.103]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3D7321F855F for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Jul 2012 10:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 22109 invoked by uid 399); 21 Jul 2012 17:28:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.77.83.164?) (pbs:robert@raszuk.net@72.254.10.46) by mail1310.opentransfer.com with ESMTPM; 21 Jul 2012 17:28:11 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 72.254.10.46
Message-ID: <500AE6AA.9090608@raszuk.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 19:28:10 +0200
From: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ahmed Bashandy <bashandy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-bgp-frr-vector-label-00.txt
References: <20120708140543.21354.82768.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FFB2330.4020809@cisco.com> <5002918F.3010107@raszuk.net> <5004A3B2.4040606@cisco.com> <5004C4A0.8030306@raszuk.net> <50086564.9020500@cisco.com> <5008FD2E.1000006@raszuk.net> <500A0336.1080001@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <500A0336.1080001@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "idr@ietf.org List" <idr@ietf.org>, "Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan)" <mkonstan@cisco.com>, rtgwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert@raszuk.net
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 17:27:13 -0000
Hi Ahmed, Since you seem to be skipping answering some questions in your replies let me ask (well repeat) one question at a time. Question: How are you going to propagate any information in iBGP from repair PEs to ingress PEs considering that overall best path for this prefix is advertised by some other protected PE ? Are you mandating that your solution is deployable only with use of one of the following techniques: - add-paths on rPEs, RRs & iPEs - best-external on rPEs + add-paths on RRs & iPEs - best-external on rPEs + diverse-path on RRs - full mesh of iPEs & rPEs with best external (I am skipping cluster external option on RRs as in the control plane only RRs which are randomly located this may be a bit difficult to provision). Scenario clarification: I am talking about case where pPE chooses the best path based on local preference or MED. The only comment I found related to the above is in the introduction: In modern networks, it is not uncommon to have a prefix reachable via multiple edge routers. One example is the best external path [8]. The reason for such fundamental question is that architectures which do not require at the service level participation of ingress routers and repair routers in the protection may be chosen over the one which does (your proposal). Rgs, R.
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Robert Raszuk
- RE: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Susan Hares
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Robert Raszuk
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Ahmed Bashandy
- Re: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Robert Raszuk
- RE: [Idr] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft… Ahmed Bashandy