IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Request for RTGWG Working Group adoption for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa

Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
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 28015130DDE; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 HqEWHeh4A0QO; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x233.google.com (mail-wm0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1741212785F; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v3-v6so6147132wmh.0; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=1/t879B7ByLS1WklrG7Ekc/eoB4oHsSay3FOgo9b9v4=; b=ZyyRLqMJkPxSLvSPHzbKOBnza4qHlyU35erDCYgoHkVzTxy6Td2c36ClA9Y0yYMIiV KPTvZkJU3IrVVJj3zmJveoSs8RB1bjVb09BaGS8oHE4LEchiSuQI0zwN5+8FJbKzqPYJ 68nSw0fGCYYikQVlNK31OYAGFR4uJ9BWutgSVF84+IWbCZ2tZN5bjOt8npgjLzqzRMBZ XtZ5zvODPkN4xxQ8ox1BBugGi1AhwXBXtn97kK+LBAtXrgngdxUprznooyeIpaUBj6Sx eBd+8dYJhDPA3XPMirFUcT0+INTpAjiPwfgfkpYtUa1vSSDkyZw4RedfFmxyxNC44c3H g2pQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language; bh=1/t879B7ByLS1WklrG7Ekc/eoB4oHsSay3FOgo9b9v4=; b=kO6Qr6sogkVPQhv7nWrluPkHaaSIE3m1/fy0Bc3YBp9rg61MMl3nVNMpC+njoRLSix +g7OTLP8xBZYz7dKbFp985ItljPhkQJP7nWIXyuN48MYTm1nuTyNYqJ9FG7Z4uDCUt59 hw1g0guKqC+X4PnOuppR1QErYjCkKwnILbYUfauy3y/EFV6vh71LPSQNUv9nKiZS5RzK wvfP8ObfvgjM3WS7zN+VzYMQimt/LlxG5mi6+GprdZreUkbzuZ2RmtLQXZAuV6IaGb1i 8dNN9BiTHewcRa7T2Dtt1dldY48WQ47NsgG68eEO1HLFSNPVo2EqgiikLdG5VjzJQasp nQEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEMDPuMJzIjrxBVw3zjw+Luy2x4wpEjG6mzbMJfqYGm18G7yaNW APPiWb7Vc+ifDjhzNfKMx+U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcWpVYFZjUBtgNwGRnz+yhJ+liflnMp0t76f5WMdFGoCw/soRjlJzzRTAG8P1tiy/z4EWqgLQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:888e:: with SMTP id k136-v6mr1506676wmd.6.1531403234593; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (host213-123-124-182.in-addr.btopenworld.com. [213.123.124.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h2-v6sm5689931wmf.28.2018.07.12.06.47.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:47:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Request for RTGWG Working Group adoption for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com>, DECRAENE Bruno IMT/OLN <bruno.decraene@orange.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "pfrpfr@gmail.com" <pfrpfr@gmail.com>, "draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa@ietf.org" <draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>, "daniel.voyer@bell.ca" <daniel.voyer@bell.ca>
References: <1e42030f-3d68-fca3-500c-95ab7303e7cd@gmail.com> <F0098308-4F1E-4596-B3F9-B6740BA88F9A@gmail.com> <bfbe9775-ee81-b1fe-bb1f-a02392bc6fb5@gmail.com> <43389eec-6d63-ee35-54ed-19562b24562b@gmail.com> <12E9EB99-2970-49B6-9407-FE6AEAB3A0BB@gmail.com> <SN6PR05MB44305802FF3330DC2AE27F9CA96E0@SN6PR05MB4430.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CA+b+ERm=Jczivo0sJGuHWyP7UJbJFY=+N-vyQK7H_Es2anLGmQ@mail.gmail.com> <DB5PR0301MB1909BF5C925473CB3BC97BE79D6D0@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <27db8d16-6120-17e9-55fa-30d35be97b32@gmail.com> <98d610d9-1dd4-3025-3b5c-070b6120cda7@gmail.com> <30046_1531388953_5B472419_30046_355_1_53C29892C857584299CBF5D05346208A47AEA48D@OPEXCLILM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DB5PR0301MB19097AB7FA7181464B765B779D590@DB5PR0301MB1909.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com> <9235_1531399667_5B474DF3_9235_106_2_ec03f05d-ff9c-4680-9c6b-8a975430ea9e@OPEXCLILM24.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85030364-d6c6-36d0-0aa5-11dc96f6b638@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:47:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9235_1531399667_5B474DF3_9235_106_2_ec03f05d-ff9c-4680-9c6b-8a975430ea9e@OPEXCLILM24.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FE6D205D2E8C3158EC3C1E09"
Content-Language: en-GB
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/xCGqyJ25ggIKWUoMB95UzWxDxiw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:47:19 -0000


On 12/07/2018 13:47, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
> TILFA helps here as it can use a loopfree IGP metric optimized path 

All IPFRR paths are loop free against the number of failures that they 
set out to guard against.

However not all techniques are loop-free at all phases of convergence, 
and you now recognize that to be the case with this method.

Some methods are unconditionally stable against any degree of failure 
(down stream repair), although this is achieved at a cost of reduced 
coverage. All other methods are potentially looping and need a method of 
retrieving the situation which I did not see documented in this draft.

- Stewart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email