RE: Remote LFA

Hi John!

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-csaszar-ipfrr-fn-01 also follows the principles of RLFAPs, but adds the dataplane notification protocol that we think was needed to make it real quick.

We are planning to show performance results from our IPFRR-FN prototype at the RTGWG meeting in Taiwan. Are you coming? Maybe we should combine the results if you have related experimentation results.

Thanks,
András

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Sucec, John M
> Sent: 2011. október 11. 19:08
> To: Gábor Sándor Enyedi; Clarence Filsfils; rtgwg@ietf.org; 
> Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; imc.shand@googlemail.com
> Subject: RE: Remote LFA
> 
> Gabor, thank you for recalling the 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hokelek-rlfap-01 Internet 
> Draft that Telcordia submitted earlier.
> 
> All: While that earlier Internet Draft did not gain much 
> traction within the Routing Area WG at the time of its 
> submission, we continued to experiment with its methods and 
> have published some proof-of-concept results.
> 
> I am glad to see that there is renewed interest in the 
> general topic of expanding/formalizing protection against 
> link failures beyond the basic LFA path mechanism (RFC 5286).
> 
> I will review the latest drafts on LFA technologies and look 
> forward to collaborating where possible.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> John
> ________________________________________
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Gábor Sándor Enyedi [gabor.sandor.enyedi@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:25 PM
> To: Clarence Filsfils; rtgwg@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant 
> (stbryant); So, Ning; imc.shand@googlemail.com
> Subject: RE: Remote LFA
> 
> Wow... I will read it as soon as I can, I'm curious what is 
> the difference between this and 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hokelek-rlfap-01 - first I 
> thought that you're speaking about this one, since the title 
> is very similar. At the last IETF we proposed this 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-csaszar-ipfrr-fn-01, but it 
> seemed that everybody was strongly against giving up local 
> protection (like it was a religious dogma). It's good to see 
> that I'm not alone anymore!
> BR,
> 
> Gabor
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Clarence Filsfils
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:09 PM
> To: rtgwg@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant (stbryant); So, Ning; 
> imc.shand@googlemail.com
> 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
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> _______________________________________________
> rtgwg mailing list
> rtgwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
> 