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

"Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 10 November 2015 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.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 5DC571AC3BC for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:12:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 IchUBleJHZX4 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpgre-esg-01.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C69E1AC3CD for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Nov 2015 21:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.122]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id E974D42DA12A4; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:11:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id tAA5C16B026564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:12:01 +0100
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.17]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 10 Nov 2015 06:12:01 +0100
From: "Henderickx, Wim (Wim)" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>, "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net>
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: AQHRG05UoUsVDkS1FEqm1NqpgbVhDJ6UbAgAgAAaYgCAAC+ggA==
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:12:00 +0000
Message-ID: <9A1A4508-E381-465E-8792-3B960D18CEA8@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <20151110000559.13326.25820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56413977.1060100@cisco.com> <30DB7514-DC23-44B3-A5F6-58532791DEFB@ericsson.com> <D266CB8D.3CF42%acee@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D266CB8D.3CF42%acee@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.151008
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.38]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9A1A4508E381465E87923B960D18CEA8alcatellucentcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/rJc-ThXRUoCLqsmWlblv9yDkWXA>
Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:12:06 -0000

I agree I support the document as a WG doc. It is widely implemented and used in networks.

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com<mailto:acee@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday 10 November 2015 at 04:21
To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>, "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com<mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net<mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>>
Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com<mailto:mpradosh@yahoo.com>>, "rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Request for WG adoption of draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt

I support this document on the Informational track. BGP PIC is a useful mechanism for speeding convergence and this describes many of the use cases in the context of a conceptual forwarding plane implementation.
Thanks,
Acee

From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM
To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <bashandy@cisco.com<mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net<mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>>
Cc: Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com<mailto:mpradosh@yahoo.com>>, Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
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)" <bashandy@cisco.com<mailto:bashandy@cisco.com>>
Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 16:25
To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com<mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>>, Chris Bowers <cbowers@juniper.net<mailto:cbowers@juniper.net>>
Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>" <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>, Clarence Filsfils <cfilsfil@cisco.com<mailto:cfilsfil@cisco.com>>, Pradosh Mohapatra <mpradosh@yahoo.com<mailto:mpradosh@yahoo.com>>
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:   <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.

The IETF Secretariat