From akatlas@gmail.com Sun Aug 12 05:39:28 2012 Return-Path: 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 3A27A21F851B for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:39:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 yPWvU67etv3i for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9928C21F8517 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so6239710obb.31 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:39:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=XGqK/ceT+R7APueQsVbXi7WmxFlCKfPCOCJ1hW6S938=; b=Jay3yHtXqc6QviOm1KWDCiqyKJa5p4lc46/Zpl2vd3ofS2v4Ts06tybaxFXPOqJrAV yPlBzOHK2s3HR9RCwaEM2X5NwHukMBbR23r3Z1yJMVwNIFJWlDB0uCGqDvzB/Po31p7Y iM5rwkbu65PrKh+O8XCuEoUG3/3U8WhzfulrASyTjpn0NwDHgIIaK6ekydr1g6pgkg1Y kwzyukZfafEc2GzHICOZvt7Oy3KjE6qFJ1BKcnd98ritOVXKcRdFjszkhNey0vgSxUrd ECEYFrEH6WpT3Q8hzNmDFRZiNC5djHV0Tt5HAVN+chBGR52VuR8HllYwKZjvf5dPGs+g bXSg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.183.200 with SMTP id eo8mr2822615igc.63.1344775166614; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.91.135 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 05:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:39:26 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: needed improvements to Remote LFA draft From: Alia Atlas To: rtgwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:39:28 -0000 There are several improvements that I would like to see to draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00. I believe at least the first four are necessary to improve the draft sufficiently given its status as Standards Track. First, if the intent is to restrict this mechanism to ONLY link protection, that belongs at a minimum prominently in the abstract and introduction. It is currently first mentioned only in Section 3. Second, the algorithm description Sec 4.2.1 and Sec 4.2.2 needs significant expansion into a more formal algorithm description, such as is in the LFA spec, RFC 5286. A brief description of the computational complexity would be useful, but the critical part is having it specified clearly. Third, in Sec 4.2.3, there is no preferred or even specified method for selecting among the different PQ options that might be available. Such a method should be specified; as the draft says, there is an advantage from the network management perspective to consistency. It is also required to have agreement on the output of analysis to compare/contrast methods. Fourth, one issue described in RFC 5286 is what happens when a worse failure occurs than the LFA was computed to handle - i.e. if a node failure happens instead of a link failure. In that case, traffic looping can occur. With Remote LFA, I believe that the same issue can exist - but made even worse because there is no effort to look for node-protecting Remote LFAs. This concern needs some description in the draft. Additionally, the equivalent of the Downstream Paths condition should be specified, if possible, that allows such traffic looping to be avoided. Finally, since the argument for Remote LFA is the improved coverage over LFAs, I would like to see the coverage analysis based on simulation to show the coverage when the Downstream Paths equivalent requirement is met vs. when it is relaxed (as currently in the draft). Fifth, for a better understanding of realistic behavior, I would like to see the analysis extended to show the min, average, and max coverage for the 11 specified topologies after each single failure has occurred in the topology. (Of course, the computation should recognize that protecting cut-links isn't feasible and not include those failures.) While I recognize that link failures are significantly more common than node failures, I believe that fast-reroute techniques should be able to cover node failures as well. Technically, I think that Remote LFA can, of course, be extended to provide node coverage - at the cost of computing a reverse-SPF from each next-next-hop of the computing router. As I said early, at a minimum, the abstract and introduction need to clearly specify that Remote LFA only provides link protection and the traffic looping concerns need to be addressed. Since this is now a working group draft, it would be good to see progress and discussion on the draft. Regards, Alia From aretana@yahoo.com Sun Aug 12 06:02:11 2012 Return-Path: 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 0552721F84A2 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:02:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.185 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185] 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 dRu-fn9lDsr6 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm18-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm18-vm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E021E21F8496 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:02:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm18.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2012 13:02:09 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.125] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2012 13:02:09 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2012 13:02:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1344776529; bh=4Ft5Jrvfh2x0CZzAGi3jT0rT8P4BVevwABEvXMx/HdQ=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Subject:Date:Message-Id:To:Mime-Version:X-Mailer; b=yIl1DDGRR2osMl8hRwe/DFvP9jGc4p8WWbyOUhw5xqgA99T2HEiITu8SZKHsxJp6vFS7otze0Usu+MrlwrhzbqHAEa/0QuH0WNyEpCPSLkzB7eMKPLDSeSnHspJKhbl5pODK4QbOBji11mE1lalmQkl0hpIjU+RoBYAEfuupEwE= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 484592.17267.bm@smtp204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: XiI1Gh4VM1m4BbitY1hlGVxMqcO9RKULsESMdUv1hLg2FB3 FCgkzu2ZIyWIPRm4TGDyPJ1yJF54PepUcPoTpEH3wPTNlURJNHw0QxjGzRDj oiCBB.LrkL5ElPz6a3St9Lsad.TEEoB7gQPRoyC6xY11FN0ptxA9MDQdad2Z H6A7uvt6H7Hlyj0cA23Ufx70ST0GkRkwOSNUPEMocygTXJ5fBmhwz8ns3Edv NkhMf7mUMrIi9O0I7qhp7_g7PWEsvdA4j6BhUi9WtMeqSU5k7yQq6l7bDFfY vQV0phg8lfo0KdppoW5NgUlKLPjjiHXbM2sfqnLdW9X6LNT9n88EjcTv6d1U 4I3XUwEVFkcJUNaGRO.tRHPkE9TeVd7lB7nj7e2b..5jDzzV30sGEmLPrzMp uicp.Bt0WAZNCDJ7bfziOXse2705GgjGJ8VhnktFZkBRWwFvSTcFoACp0Ijj 6J9r.reOwFfMMAtFuu7g3dZfZSQq555qnZHpVgeyzYVvF9r_katKq.tjxFXt 2sj995dfE0sWmECy7qDyrZ_A- X-Yahoo-SMTP: 9nk.LniswBCzK.xFeeRVo9zB6bw- Received: from [192.168.1.41] (aretana@98.26.35.152 with plain) by smtp204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2012 06:02:09 -0700 PDT From: Alvaro Retana Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Minutes Posted Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:07 -0400 Message-Id: <5CDCE964-3614-4281-A099-55E092CADE33@yahoo.com> To: rtgwg@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:02:11 -0000 Hi! I just posted the minutes from Vancouver. http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-rtgwg Please send any corrections/additions. Thanks! Alvaro. From curtis@occnc.com Sun Aug 12 11:48:44 2012 Return-Path: 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 D720C21F8650 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 fRoabYeueg-d for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (gateway.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC1B21F8623 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com (newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:320]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7CImhID069016; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:48:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@occnc.com) Message-Id: <201208121848.q7CImhID069016@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com> To: Alvaro Retana From: Curtis Villamizar Subject: Re: Minutes Posted In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:07 EDT." <5CDCE964-3614-4281-A099-55E092CADE33@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:48:43 -0400 Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:48:44 -0000 In message <5CDCE964-3614-4281-A099-55E092CADE33@yahoo.com> Alvaro Retana writes: > Hi! > > I just posted the minutes from Vancouver. > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-rtgwg > > Please send any corrections/additions. > > Thanks! > > Alvaro. Alvaro, Alia, WG, I've been waiting for the minutes to see if there was any disuccion on CL Framework. Apparently none. There is a small chicken-and-egg problem. I can't submit two drafts together that cross reference each other. So I will send in draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework and draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases as -00 versions, then bump up CL requirements, CL Use Cases, and CL Framework, all referencing the WG drafts rather than the older individual submissions. BTW- draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-04 has to still be referenced as an internet-draft since it isn't published as an RFC yet. CL Framework references a few expired drafts, but discussion may prompt dropping those references or prompting authors of referenced drafts to resurect the work. Curtis From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Aug 12 11:53:26 2012 Return-Path: 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 1E45221F8659; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.432 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 uZhh2Cc-l1gs; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A077521F8613; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120812185325.27857.64726.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:25 -0700 Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:53:26 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations Author(s) : So Ning Andrew Malis Dave McDysan Lucy Yong Curtis Villamizar Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2012-08-12 Abstract: This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations for composite links. Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to multipath techniques. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Aug 12 11:53:51 2012 Return-Path: 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 5ADEC21F8673; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.462 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.462 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BE+dAQHdfVWJ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE9521F8672; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120812185350.25842.50241.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:53:50 -0700 Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:53:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol Label Switchi= ng (MPLS) Author(s) : So Ning Dave McDysan Eric Osborne Lucy Yong Curtis Villamizar Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-00.txt Pages : 40 Date : 2012-08-12 Abstract: This document specifies a framework for support of composite link in MPLS networks. A composite link consists of a group of homogenous or non-homogenous links that have the same forward adjacency and can be considered as a single TE link or an IP link in routing. A composite link relies on its component links to carry the traffic over the composite link. Applicability is described for a single pair of MPLS-capable nodes, a sequence of MPLS-capable nodes, or a set of layer networks connecting MPLS-capable nodes. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Sun Aug 12 13:52:47 2012 Return-Path: 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 B082E21F8616 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:52:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 ebOWzC4aL7JJ for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAB121F8606 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7CKqju3012431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:52:45 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0701.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.154]) by eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) with mapi; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:52:44 -0400 From: Jeff Tantsura To: Alia Atlas Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:54:08 -0400 Subject: Re: needed improvements to Remote LFA draft Thread-Topic: needed improvements to Remote LFA draft Thread-Index: Ac14zGuVAUOSi1Q7TaCef+SUJsSpOA== Message-ID: <32FCD878-1DD6-4149-A64E-81D77604C684@ericsson.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa@tools.ietf.org" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:52:47 -0000 Hi, I agree with Alia's analysis of the current state of the draft. I'd propose that someone, perhaps Clarence re-runs RFC6571 to include rLFA. Regards, Jeff On Aug 12, 2012, at 5:39, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > There are several improvements that I would like to see to > draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00. I believe at least the first four are > necessary to improve the draft sufficiently given its status as > Standards Track. >=20 > First, if the intent is to restrict this mechanism to ONLY link > protection, that belongs at a minimum prominently in the abstract and > introduction. It is currently first mentioned only in Section 3. >=20 > Second, the algorithm description Sec 4.2.1 and Sec 4.2.2 needs > significant expansion into a more formal algorithm description, such > as is in the LFA spec, RFC 5286. A brief description of the > computational complexity would be useful, but the critical part is > having it specified clearly. >=20 > Third, in Sec 4.2.3, there is no preferred or even specified method > for selecting among the different PQ options that might be available. > Such a method should be specified; as the draft says, there is an > advantage from the network management perspective to consistency. It > is also required to have agreement on the output of analysis to > compare/contrast methods. >=20 > Fourth, one issue described in RFC 5286 is what happens when a worse > failure occurs than the LFA was computed to handle - i.e. if a node > failure happens instead of a link failure. In that case, traffic > looping can occur. With Remote LFA, I believe that the same issue can > exist - but made even worse because there is no effort to look for > node-protecting Remote LFAs. This concern needs some description in > the draft. Additionally, the equivalent of the Downstream Paths > condition should be specified, if possible, that allows such traffic > looping to be avoided. Finally, since the argument for Remote LFA is > the improved coverage over LFAs, I would like to see the coverage > analysis based on simulation to show the coverage when the Downstream > Paths equivalent requirement is met vs. when it is relaxed (as > currently in the draft). >=20 > Fifth, for a better understanding of realistic behavior, I would like > to see the analysis extended to show the min, average, and max > coverage for the 11 specified topologies after each single failure has > occurred in the topology. (Of course, the computation should > recognize that protecting cut-links isn't feasible and not include > those failures.) >=20 > While I recognize that link failures are significantly more common > than node failures, I believe that fast-reroute techniques should be > able to cover node failures as well. Technically, I think that Remote > LFA can, of course, be extended to provide node coverage - at the cost > of computing a reverse-SPF from each next-next-hop of the computing > router. As I said early, at a minimum, the abstract and introduction > need to clearly specify that Remote LFA only provides link protection > and the traffic looping concerns need to be addressed. >=20 > Since this is now a working group draft, it would be good to see > progress and discussion on the draft. >=20 > Regards, > Alia > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Aug 12 15:09:59 2012 Return-Path: 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 792D421F869F; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 CQFu4MiouPrR; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20E621F86A1; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120812220958.28933.54021.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:09:58 -0700 Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:09:59 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Composite Link Use Cases and Design Considerations Author(s) : So Ning Andrew Malis Dave McDysan Lucy Yong Curtis Villamizar Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2012-08-12 Abstract: This document provides a set of use cases and design considerations for composite links. Composite link is a formalization of multipath techniques currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to multipath techniques. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Aug 12 16:58:58 2012 Return-Path: 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 8D51221F86A4; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:58:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ujNXTi0EHVkb; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09FE21F869A; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:58:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120812235857.5598.85871.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:58:57 -0700 Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:58:58 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol Label Switchi= ng (MPLS) Author(s) : So Ning Dave McDysan Eric Osborne Lucy Yong Curtis Villamizar Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01.txt Pages : 41 Date : 2012-08-12 Abstract: This document specifies a framework for support of composite link in MPLS networks. A composite link consists of a group of homogenous or non-homogenous links that have the same forward adjacency and can be considered as a single TE link or an IP link in routing. A composite link relies on its component links to carry the traffic over the composite link. Applicability is described for a single pair of MPLS-capable nodes, a sequence of MPLS-capable nodes, or a set of layer networks connecting MPLS-capable nodes. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Aug 12 18:31:03 2012 Return-Path: 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 2E58521F852E; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:31:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vF5Lo7Y17lhB; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C80F21F8534; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:31:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120813013102.28455.28151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 18:31:02 -0700 Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:31:03 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link Author(s) : Curtis Villamizar Dave McDysan So Ning Andrew Malis Lucy Yong Filename : draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-08-12 Abstract: There is often a need to provide large aggregates of bandwidth that are best provided using parallel links between routers or MPLS LSR. In core networks there is often no alternative since the aggregate capacities of core networks today far exceed the capacity of a single physical link or single packet processing element. The presence of parallel links, with each link potentially comprised of multiple layers has resulted in additional requirements. Certain services may benefit from being restricted to a subset of the component links or a specific component link, where component link characteristics, such as latency, differ. Certain services require that an LSP be treated as atomic and avoid reordering. Other services will continue to require only that reordering not occur within a microflow as is current practice. Current practice related to multipath is described briefly in an appendix. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From curtis@occnc.com Sun Aug 12 19:12:12 2012 Return-Path: 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 B693021F8616 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.435 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] 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 fnZz2gjdwm2C for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (gateway.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA0F21F8615 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com (newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:320]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7D2BntQ079489; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:11:50 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from curtis@occnc.com) Message-Id: <201208130211.q7D2BntQ079489@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com> To: IETF RTGWG mailing list Subject: Composite Link From: Curtis Villamizar Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:11:49 -0400 X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:12:12 -0000 The three drafts have been updated. draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-08 draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-framework-01 The only changes since last IETF are updates of the references, bumping up revs of internet-drafts and a few nits, mostly adding the required IANA NOOP sections. Curtis From akatlas@gmail.com Mon Aug 13 14:40:50 2012 Return-Path: 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 2461921F85EF for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.063 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.464, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_32=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 4HFqJnwl7xRG for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F2C21F85DF for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnh4 with SMTP id h4so4098927ggn.31 for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:40:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rpOtu4ebj5s1Kl0HS69HKvTN0bZvyxVkLWZrSwg+Xp0=; b=Ka6g57+mq7E93mBUW9OvKTYecdpOfdCm9wZ3giQP24ZnLPps6EmEEat7nmNfnwTeDj eOVhg0Fo0JL1BL/CrgC+9r0EPgd9bi50sbNBqSrTss2aFfMwaGQJcLWhCibEGw+7udPb EDmNhQo4bQYxidX5OtWMdBpEwxqBVNkj4q6Tuwm28rdzj+ujnXQWjJWfga2/w3MzzQoq A5SUIzP2sLhfUmHLp6O7dkD5z4sfYIeEWErI3SfCoWJAN2M7ZibYp9FFcimfaZUy4CGu peTHuwFkSkFZJErp3eICvYD/RptOBEqfeugrVbTSQtKVsMw79tKkf5Q//vpqCy++hA5M plzA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.95.225 with SMTP id dn1mr7385286igb.58.1344894048954; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.91.135 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:40:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Remote LFA typo in example? From: Alia Atlas To: rtgwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: abishekg@juniper.net X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:40:50 -0000 In section 5: When a failure occurs on the link between PE1 and P2, PE1 does not have an LFA for traffic reachable via P1. Similarly, by symmetry, if the link between PE2 and P1 fails, PE2 does not have an LFA for traffic reachable via P2. Increasing the metric between PE1 and PE2 to allow the LFA would impact the normal traffic performance by potentially increasing the latency. | 100 | -P2---------P1- \ / 1000 \ / 1000 PE1---PE2 5 Figure 3: Example SP topology I think this is probably a typo, where PE1 has no LFA to P2 and destinations beyond P2 for the failure of link PE1<->P2 and PE2 has no LFA to P1 for the failure of PE2<->P1. Alia From akatlas@gmail.com Tue Aug 21 08:41:48 2012 Return-Path: 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 6D07721F8668 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.966 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.966 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_32=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7obTx6wnH1Ap for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gh0-f172.google.com (mail-gh0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF34721F8568 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so6559475ghb.31 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BvG6Xoez09zwk7yZHzQyIJ9OzEviX1IfJrQ6hbiYvoE=; b=HOpZ/cLxbYkUeB5bssnIVwxkCqsyCYRIoPdlpOy1U47AAW/Ap6Dydwwgj2bF7JJryu Vb+7AJV2TLkNDd0/nStdhZbnqW/20sIB0G5EMYgU+p95UgWNBk476zsboDIQjp5jlvPr imo3DATJFSfEGiYcki0jnHdgFPVf0UW2nLNRvLRTWLiAO35Dx0HDBFsx4hMefzJOKVdi 2YTviGA9jAXTBTIQy+3imcELpG6rr+n5eAvnL4KpeZ3KREXhGQN6Ok8fQ2cHiXUlJG9h fna9Ut2gsxc+HXTl98xaAfHGdaaE2+YAkItOGBNBdSRY0wg2IhBDWnKGXKGq7GrOKQwS ScFw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.237.38 with SMTP id uz6mr13941463igc.2.1345563706723; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.91.135 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:41:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5033A419.30503@gmail.com> References: <5033A419.30503@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:41:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Remote LFA typo in example? From: Alia Atlas To: Mike Shand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa@tools.ietf.org, rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:41:48 -0000 Makes sense. Alia On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Mike Shand wrote: > I'm guessing P1 and P2 have been transposed in the diagram. > > Mike > > > On 13/08/2012 22:40, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >> In section 5: >> >> When a failure occurs on the link between PE1 and P2, PE1 does not >> have an LFA for traffic reachable via P1. Similarly, by symmetry, if >> the link between PE2 and P1 fails, PE2 does not have an LFA for >> traffic reachable via P2. >> >> Increasing the metric between PE1 and PE2 to allow the LFA would >> impact the normal traffic performance by potentially increasing the >> latency. >> | 100 | >> -P2---------P1- >> \ / >> 1000 \ / 1000 >> PE1---PE2 >> 5 >> >> Figure 3: Example SP topology >> >> I think this is probably a typo, where PE1 has no LFA to P2 and >> destinations beyond P2 for the failure of link PE1<->P2 and PE2 has no >> LFA to P1 for the failure of PE2<->P1. >> >> Alia >> _______________________________________________ >> rtgwg mailing list >> rtgwg@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > From imc.shand@gmail.com Tue Aug 21 08:07:13 2012 Return-Path: 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 4FD5B21F8713 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:07:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.499, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_32=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id onYZkHOnqZ5r for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E57421F86A5 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so2282571eaa.31 for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BEmheKK3stVTISae0uy2r9JzxVE5z8a/l8WFUlK1wBY=; b=EvuG9bK6ShLP+vc9602DdLi6fuUTmyb9f8G8ftmg0NMPgVudJLFEC7XnZ9giVRa13o Y7hXLWKVw8hrbGY7ivYp8a+MYG5o8MNjrqzDuWsGrA+d3A5XDru93v9Yfp0FBhZiVgjm uTWA17Zz+ivnr3YuGlDGP4EuIiA0wJqa3GOaXWiKZqLAWzcn1iakNXJ5AtJMPd2eQ0kq PzDsJ6TD+12I842In3uiTqGJDv7LyzbVjWaXhBoIjpx84LfQ4gprf7D6tQNnDpyQxVKR eGCtb64Vtqh4wJqy1YpJh2zlqluZwfricGyMG2KOm8iYeSiOzxcizkY6/oDg1AvUFIUv F/PQ== Received: by 10.14.215.193 with SMTP id e41mr14039625eep.44.1345561627454; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:07:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (188-220-40-104.zone11.bethere.co.uk. [188.220.40.104]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y1sm5225363eel.0.2012.08.21.08.07.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5033A419.30503@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:07:05 +0100 From: Mike Shand User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Remote LFA typo in example? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:44:41 -0700 Cc: draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:07:13 -0000 I'm guessing P1 and P2 have been transposed in the diagram. Mike On 13/08/2012 22:40, Alia Atlas wrote: > In section 5: > > When a failure occurs on the link between PE1 and P2, PE1 does not > have an LFA for traffic reachable via P1. Similarly, by symmetry, if > the link between PE2 and P1 fails, PE2 does not have an LFA for > traffic reachable via P2. > > Increasing the metric between PE1 and PE2 to allow the LFA would > impact the normal traffic performance by potentially increasing the > latency. > | 100 | > -P2---------P1- > \ / > 1000 \ / 1000 > PE1---PE2 > 5 > > Figure 3: Example SP topology > > I think this is probably a typo, where PE1 has no LFA to P2 and > destinations beyond P2 for the failure of link PE1<->P2 and PE2 has no > LFA to P1 for the failure of PE2<->P1. > > Alia > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > rtgwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg From aretana@cisco.com Thu Aug 23 12:13:12 2012 Return-Path: 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 4BBA711E8099 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:13:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OkpzDOQSaxTp for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7291421F8652 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:13:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=aretana@cisco.com; l=979; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1345749191; x=1346958791; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=J1ag0ZtdnRM/QV4tnVTfbBilYCSB+csykS/d6avjJYs=; b=OtFI0XbiqiTmjn5aU5Huyi8PD8d8dQmTd0bWwmWhiZtVl+Fav6oJFm9S lYiRQf+gMOoWTpov5qpklqefU5Gc+koRi4Fpn6PZAPWz3NET4Gc8sq2v1 Nja/Chs3TlckjIFplS7dNBB8K+8wKkf//KDbAt1wp7U58t++ZvjzeYMfi Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApEHAD6ANlCtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABFgkqCcIVbrzqBB4InEgF4AQsBAnInBBMih2uYLoEooEaLIoZ3A5VUji2BZ4JjgWE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,301,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217";a="114714768" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2012 19:12:59 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7NJCxFg021257 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:12:59 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.98]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:12:58 -0500 From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" To: "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: New Affiliation Thread-Topic: New Affiliation Thread-Index: AQHNgWNOJsTdhK+RFU2U+nMQdqlwUg== Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:12:58 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.150.44.120] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19134.001 x-tm-as-result: No--25.345500-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC5BF8F9900aretanaciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:13:12 -0000 --_000_CC5BF8F9900aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! Just FYI=85 As of this week I have a new e-mail address: aretana@cisco.com. Alvaro. --_000_CC5BF8F9900aretanaciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <768CCD2659975147857910B23F600760@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi!

Just FYI=85

As of this week I have a new e-mail address:  aretana@cisco.com.<= /div>

Alvaro.
--_000_CC5BF8F9900aretanaciscocom_-- From balajivenkat299@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 01:10:00 2012 Return-Path: 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 66C9111E80A3 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:10:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.565 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y2sNqZJu3XMG for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:10:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E618D11E808D for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so8768421pbb.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:09:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=5SqKKjpQw+eK2mP4Ov7R1UDZWQjJ2VCRq0bpuyclNug=; b=JhysLvcbb651j4Zr9m2hxR5LT2KTK6N8mxvTbMsoTXQM6i2a3aSvpNjPrd5xux7z/J CwBQQSdm6iFMgKWULLVvZNgy81K9AmAqpmbBuyvv0vtt4u0aXHjHboBc03EXK6xkuOuP nmP3Tq6iDhcKj0mvO2iY40Zag5dtqMIkjZD/yJhBLLNFBT9rlexSk1U0p0y9EovUw3gj IdjsXhb8Xm+Mu8hYGaFHGtrRl+KuiX1HCN7S7+Iy7XymAmE9CkdeaM3xEGEMmbES/2Tj tlCYD3DZAD6vKGonda6JW9b3Xr3L4RRiyWaM0zyg4sOCWTw/Ae0U0Lt8LCw4meupd3d7 0yxw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.87.227 with SMTP id bb3mr36360164pab.3.1346141399633; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.223.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:39:59 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami To: rtgwg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042ef465f14d9904c84ef7ae Cc: Shankar Raman M J , Gaurav Raina X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:10:00 -0000 --f46d042ef465f14d9904c84ef7ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear all, We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the following draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 Please feel free to comment on the same. thanks and regards, balaji venkat --f46d042ef465f14d9904c84ef7ae Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

We would like the working group mem= bers opinion and comments on the following draft.

http= ://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03

Please feel free to comment on the same.

=
thanks and regards,
balaji venkat
--f46d042ef465f14d9904c84ef7ae-- From eosborne@cisco.com Tue Aug 28 07:53:09 2012 Return-Path: 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 6BB3121F853E for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:53:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5oUOMja5p0BW for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F55621F853F for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 07:53:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eosborne@cisco.com; l=1371; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1346165586; x=1347375186; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=V+MlSlrzPdkSimXvzhODBVbdcVznuzv3/U7ufQyqYvw=; b=MmN1pKrVyhZomvApuPkUE2bKgGJHGFytSQC8PgVTD6DgrkYJYe26xpap NB7rAJ0ahtcDvtABvHf3K4hqdVVcYV3hko9hDdFQB/X4y5rGYMzwuVVj5 U5QUUUI8YduOkL3r2J8cCuRfohyepeR1jSA71UovOW+8LTPnXlPzOxsrb E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EADnaPFCtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFumqBB4IgAQEBBBIBJz8MBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHMhQJCAIEAQ0FCBMHh2sLm0agR4sIhXlgA5ZqjRqBZ4Jj X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,327,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="115823202" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2012 14:53:05 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7SEr5ZE008083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:53:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:53:05 -0500 From: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" To: Balaji venkat Venkataswami , "rtgwg@ietf.org" Subject: RE: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 Thread-Topic: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 Thread-Index: AQHNhPSNEDF+TkawGUW9spPJFh9sBZdvNwtA Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:53:05 +0000 Message-ID: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.98.23.84] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19140.007 x-tm-as-result: No--30.546600-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Shankar Raman M J , Gaurav Raina X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:53:09 -0000 Some comments: 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your Acknowled= gements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the IETF as t= he IETF is not a research journal. To move towards standardization you'd n= eed support from one or more operators stating that the problem you solve i= s a real problem for them, and that your solution is both effective and de= ployable in practice. Note that this support has more heft if it comes fro= m the operations side, not from the research department. Do you have such = support? 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, inclu= ding inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to investigate the operational feasibi= lity of this cooperation. =20 eric > -----Original Message----- > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM > To: rtgwg@ietf.org > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the > following draft. >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 >=20 > Please feel free to comment on the same. >=20 > thanks and regards, > balaji venkat From balajivenkat299@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 11:38:43 2012 Return-Path: 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 A15DB21F8604 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:38:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TFlwtkHcK3lX for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BAB21F8602 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so9715710pbb.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=s4IMC9WjIpClX9sVD0BlWmUuJ06RMLLAqsCcqpz72RY=; b=O0g0qSLnlXxCeA50h6YbrSQhM+3o0kQ7JY0emIW5Dw1y89zCzHgGKghqfua2YxwY8l rp+oAe04c/mIJ87+8dW1P8bK7sxdmvZV32gOFeuklpgtN3CK7BALg4Pjihk5XXVAsjK4 XyCkdo+pbdtQ3JxhuAAH7QZf9H9318QeuvBh7EtuEhXFnMe0H2JAp6cXpVKPPaZWzfdB W/HaoCCY+fNfZEToqZirjvKmRH9MbdXuvFED1sSrriWZyKhizOZ6PnHWElP1A/ldWgIL M4OBphAY/SIrupqohVaiYi5WevpRaetc5IW/r8CVnqnq9vw079Z93Z2cyuetgIlsbo2N tKQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.130.201 with SMTP id og9mr44536613pbb.12.1346179122252; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:38:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.223.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:38:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:08:41 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b10c8c962cb9304c857c00f Cc: Shankar Raman M J , rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:38:43 -0000 --047d7b10c8c962cb9304c857c00f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Eric, Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a few others entered for consideration in the IRTF. Tony Li responded as follows... So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research or engineering. Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the engineering side of the world. It would then make sense to spark an email discussion on the rtgwg mailing list. You have on the other hand branded this as research. Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question of subjectivity ? Your opinion would be most useful. thanks and regards, balaji venkat On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote: > Some comments: > > 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your > Acknowledgements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the > IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. To move towards > standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating that > the problem you solve is a real problem for them, and that your solution > is both effective and deployable in practice. Note that this support has > more heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research > department. Do you have such support? > > 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, > including inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to investigate the operational > feasibility of this cooperation. > > > > > > eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM > > To: rtgwg@ietf.org > > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina > > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 > > > > Dear all, > > > > We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the > > following draft. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 > > > > Please feel free to comment on the same. > > > > thanks and regards, > > balaji venkat > --047d7b10c8c962cb9304c857c00f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Eric,

Here is an attempt that we made to get this d= raft and a few others entered for consideration in the IRTF.

=
Tony Li responded as follows...

So, the first question is whether or not th= is counts as research or engineering. =A0Glancing at it, it looks to me lik= e you're on the engineering side of the world. =A0It would then make se= nse to spark an email discussion on the rtgwg mailing list.

You have on the other hand branded this as research.

Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question o= f subjectivity ?

Your opinion would be most useful= .

thanks and regards,
balaji venkat
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne)= <eosborne@cisco.com> wrote:
Some comments:

1) =A0This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your Acknowl= edgements indicate. =A0This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the IETF = as the IETF is not a research journal. =A0To move towards standardization y= ou'd need support from one or more operators stating that the problem y= ou solve is =A0a real problem for them, and that your solution is both effe= ctive and deployable in practice. =A0Note that this support has more heft i= f it comes from the operations side, not from the research department. =A0D= o you have such support?

2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, inclu= ding inter-AS TE LSPs. =A0You may want to investigate the operational feasi= bility of this cooperation.





eric


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf
> Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM
> To: rtgwg@ietf.org
> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina
> Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
>
> Dear all,
>
> We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the > following draft.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-int= er-as-psp-03
>
> Please feel free to comment on the same.
>
> thanks and regards,
> balaji venkat

--047d7b10c8c962cb9304c857c00f-- From balajivenkat299@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 11:54:26 2012 Return-Path: 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 51AD821F85DA for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tOhYycDPMVI for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9120821F860B for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dadf8 with SMTP id f8so3445530dad.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JRDDx6l9h5CwKETXXtdE/8Np8rQtAcyEzK9025zw6II=; b=VvOByyjccoMqJLUYLln4f0ETnoFAMV1ftJOYJb2NaEaRcc4jmnHkAeE1XVmYWGPaZu 6H9kDas9PkWxsA/TbF36+aOH0baZeHORQCCPiewReOOyaN/14WjY2x5Yeaba7lVCQqDJ AjZBLB9sRIg2Dx/xGSI9OL5Mytqv8YjkA+qldABMNyKoJbhqYCsKqAVUA2cxddJQEF0v 9yXlSsHaF2KLrKClL2HEck7RVOeL6UlcyTF4M7TSxlAnu+qjLd1bIQ5j2/36fKGtGoZh 1XKba3CduQ2B4GS2ba8zxr0q0E5JHuayxGqHxMJOO/OgWXKPKDe92+O10A9ByVTNzqrV Y/Gw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.226.167 with SMTP id rt7mr44421905pbc.146.1346180064990; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.223.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:54:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:24:24 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" , tony.ti@tony.li Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff245c793d5e504c857f83a Cc: Shankar Raman M J , rtgwg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:54:26 -0000 --e89a8ff245c793d5e504c857f83a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Including Tony Li On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami < balajivenkat299@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Eric, > > Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a few others entered > for consideration in the IRTF. > > Tony Li responded as follows... > > So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research or > engineering. Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the engineering > side of the world. It would then make sense to spark an email discussion > on the rtgwg mailing list. > > You have on the other hand branded this as research. > > Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question of > subjectivity ? > > Your opinion would be most useful. > > thanks and regards, > balaji venkat > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) < > eosborne@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Some comments: >> >> 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your >> Acknowledgements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the >> IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. To move towards >> standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating that >> the problem you solve is a real problem for them, and that your solution >> is both effective and deployable in practice. Note that this support has >> more heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research >> department. Do you have such support? >> >> 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, >> including inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to investigate the operational >> feasibility of this cooperation. >> >> >> >> >> >> eric >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM >> > To: rtgwg@ietf.org >> > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina >> > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the >> > following draft. >> > >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 >> > >> > Please feel free to comment on the same. >> > >> > thanks and regards, >> > balaji venkat >> > > --e89a8ff245c793d5e504c857f83a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Including Tony Li

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at= 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat299@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Eric,

Here is an att= empt that we made to get this draft and a few others entered for considerat= ion in the IRTF.

Tony Li responded as follows...

So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research or = engineering. =A0Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the engin= eering side of the world. =A0It would then make sense to spark an email dis= cussion on the rtgwg mailing list.

You have on the other hand branded this as research.

Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question o= f subjectivity ?

Your opinion would be most useful= .

thanks and regards,
balaji venkat

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, = Eric Osborne (eosborne) <eosborne@cisco.com> wrote:
Some comments:

1) =A0This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your Acknowl= edgements indicate. =A0This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the IETF = as the IETF is not a research journal. =A0To move towards standardization y= ou'd need support from one or more operators stating that the problem y= ou solve is =A0a real problem for them, and that your solution is both effe= ctive and deployable in practice. =A0Note that this support has more heft i= f it comes from the operations side, not from the research department. =A0D= o you have such support?

2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, inclu= ding inter-AS TE LSPs. =A0You may want to investigate the operational feasi= bility of this cooperation.





eric


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgw= g-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM
> To: rtgwg@ietf.org=
> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina
> Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
>
> Dear all,
>
> We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the > following draft.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-int= er-as-psp-03
>
> Please feel free to comment on the same.
>
> thanks and regards,
> balaji venkat


--e89a8ff245c793d5e504c857f83a-- From eosborne@cisco.com Tue Aug 28 12:03:56 2012 Return-Path: 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 4E1BC21F861D for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:03:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dYAu5tShj1Ly for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98CAC21F8595 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:03:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eosborne@cisco.com; l=3388; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1346180635; x=1347390235; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=U8poDbggS/lLHmxHJPvHZqNTAQyThb2TVInmrCcUClo=; b=ZE+ZiZbKtrsgC47XEfWGnmf/7IzicdB/5FF6mRexECMlusRNa9BpRI6X qEsd+7XrrIdMzkHIYYVHXNke2/EiK3Me9OqcQrSIgR6z7kToeJn33zNqh d9J8p5Z3aa/eu/Koe8vy/6EoXhVyo4BN4VVB8Nx9+6CM9/hRf8ovt1H+h 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAG8VPVCtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABFum+BB4IgAQEBBBIBJzQLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQoUCQchERQJCAIEAQ0FCBMHh1wDDAubXZZzDYlOiiVjGgGFXmADlAOCZ4l6gyCBZ4JjgWE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,328,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="116120084" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2012 19:03:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7SJ3kqo024529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:03:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:03:45 -0500 From: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" To: Balaji venkat Venkataswami , "tony.ti@tony.li" Subject: RE: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 Thread-Topic: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 Thread-Index: AQHNhPSNEDF+TkawGUW9spPJFh9sBZdvNwtAgACrjoCAAARkAP//rNbQ Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:03:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F551AAB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.98.23.84] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19140.007 x-tm-as-result: No--42.051000-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Shankar Raman M J , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:03:56 -0000 Hi Balaji- You're right that perception is by nature subjective. Tony may have look= ed at the fact that you're proposing BGP changes and decided it was operati= ons; I looked at it and saw that the bulk of your draft was about algorithm= s and graph theory and that it looked rather undeployable and decided it wa= s research-y. I'm fine with discussion of the draft continuing on RTGWG (no= t that I have any power to stop it anyways), and you might want to try to a= nswer the points I raised in my first mail as part of the discussion you'd = like to spark. eric > -----Original Message----- > From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:balajivenkat299@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:54 PM > To: Eric Osborne (eosborne); tony.ti@tony.li > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; rtgwg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 >=20 > Including Tony Li >=20 >=20 > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami > wrote: >=20 >=20 > Dear Eric, >=20 > Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a few others > entered for consideration in the IRTF. >=20 > Tony Li responded as follows... >=20 > So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research or > engineering. Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the engineeri= ng side > of the world. It would then make sense to spark an email discussion on t= he > rtgwg mailing list. >=20 > You have on the other hand branded this as research. >=20 > Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question of > subjectivity ? >=20 > Your opinion would be most useful. >=20 > thanks and regards, > balaji venkat >=20 > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) > wrote: >=20 >=20 > Some comments: >=20 > 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as > your Acknowledgements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere = in > the IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. To move towards > standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating tha= t > the problem you solve is a real problem for them, and that your solution= is > both effective and deployable in practice. Note that this support has mo= re > heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research departme= nt. > Do you have such support? >=20 > 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation > between ASes, including inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to investigate th= e > operational feasibility of this cooperation. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > eric >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM > > To: rtgwg@ietf.org > > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina > > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp- > 03 > > > > Dear all, > > > > We would like the working group members opinion and > comments on the > > following draft. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as- > psp-03 > > > > Please feel free to comment on the same. > > > > thanks and regards, > > balaji venkat >=20 >=20 >=20 From balajivenkat299@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 12:16:13 2012 Return-Path: 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 B57CD21F84A0 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YxKcycm-2c2X for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAC221F8621 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dadf8 with SMTP id f8so3456976dad.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1jDaTF5sM0V4br9xlWlvzBUyTJsvy+oqfqvu9NzRLKI=; b=pr5MBvhT9HbbQhAfAwIejDRGYCS845afcjit3pycgACQmdRZhB5mVa7baKIQbLuB3j D8QdxcYAnh3AGA4mzzcgNxob2N68RPCR6V9SA4GHl2XP1WTZEzRBB4vDdaTpRCXvu0ZJ BS7a6xOmne8uApoMg8s88AGIWGNBjkeHkmreGycmK1evp/iBhzt5+E3FRIUU+AzVHGWj C9XQNpa0e6B/42/v9/ulaRyCLDoVlfrfKL+hlupRwru+D8YCTJUGivpUSVucMTKotLuW q2v4AskxXEqsGPCt9lR2hb0OP2MZj099rWkaT1n7BwwO5c2FaFkjGHnFkmHmFoE92We0 X08Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.226.167 with SMTP id rt7mr44551836pbc.146.1346181372272; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:16:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.223.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:16:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F551AAB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F551AAB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:46:11 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff245c77f5e2804c85846f1 Cc: Shankar Raman M J , "tony.ti@tony.li" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:16:13 -0000 --e89a8ff245c77f5e2804c85846f1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Eric, This draft at the present context aimed at service providers that have multiple ASes spanning across the globe. Such an ISP may have large number of ASes (in the 10s) each catering to the local geography / region. Amongst these ASes which belong to a single ISP (though admin wise split up for management purposes, but not ownership wise) there may be a necessity to deploy this scheme. As a first step they could derive the topology of the neighborhood and isolate those ASes which belong to them and run the scheme proposed in the draft. Integrating strands into a graph that too with just 10s of ASes is quite trivial. There are specific algorithms that can construct the topology proposed in the scheme. Amongst these ASes sharing the power consumed to available bandwidth ratio would be based on trust. However the ideal situation would be to run this amongst the entire internet. That step though not currently realizable may do good in the future. Running up the stats on the major global ISPs there are some that have presences in more than 150 countries. The ASes within each region constituted by one or more countries makes this scheme plausible. regards, balaji venkat On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) < eosborne@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Balaji- > > You're right that perception is by nature subjective. Tony may have > looked at the fact that you're proposing BGP changes and decided it was > operations; I looked at it and saw that the bulk of your draft was about > algorithms and graph theory and that it looked rather undeployable and > decided it was research-y. I'm fine with discussion of the draft continuing > on RTGWG (not that I have any power to stop it anyways), and you might want > to try to answer the points I raised in my first mail as part of the > discussion you'd like to spark. > > > eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:balajivenkat299@gmail.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:54 PM > > To: Eric Osborne (eosborne); tony.ti@tony.li > > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; rtgwg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 > > > > Including Tony Li > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Eric, > > > > Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a few others > > entered for consideration in the IRTF. > > > > Tony Li responded as follows... > > > > So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research or > > engineering. Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the > engineering side > > of the world. It would then make sense to spark an email discussion on > the > > rtgwg mailing list. > > > > You have on the other hand branded this as research. > > > > Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a question > of > > subjectivity ? > > > > Your opinion would be most useful. > > > > thanks and regards, > > balaji venkat > > > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) > > wrote: > > > > > > Some comments: > > > > 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, > as > > your Acknowledgements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere > in > > the IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. To move towards > > standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating > that > > the problem you solve is a real problem for them, and that your > solution is > > both effective and deployable in practice. Note that this support has > more > > heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research > department. > > Do you have such support? > > > > 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation > > between ASes, including inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to investigate > the > > operational feasibility of this cooperation. > > > > > > > > > > > > eric > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg- > > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM > > > To: rtgwg@ietf.org > > > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina > > > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp- > > 03 > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > We would like the working group members opinion and > > comments on the > > > following draft. > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as- > > psp-03 > > > > > > Please feel free to comment on the same. > > > > > > thanks and regards, > > > balaji venkat > > > > > > > > --e89a8ff245c77f5e2804c85846f1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Eric,

This draft at the present context aimed at se= rvice providers that have multiple ASes spanning across the globe. Such an = ISP may have large number of ASes (in the 10s) each catering to the local g= eography / region. Amongst these ASes which belong to a single ISP (though = admin wise split up for management purposes, but not ownership wise) there = may be a necessity to deploy this scheme.=A0

As a first step they could derive the topology of the n= eighborhood and isolate those ASes which belong to them and run the scheme = proposed in the draft. Integrating strands into a graph that too with just = 10s of ASes is quite trivial. There are specific algorithms that can constr= uct the topology proposed in the scheme.

Amongst these ASes sharing the power consumed to availa= ble bandwidth ratio would be based on trust. However the ideal situation wo= uld be to run this amongst the entire internet. That step though not curren= tly realizable may do good in the future.

Running up the stats on the major global ISPs there are= some that have presences in more than 150 countries. The ASes within each = region constituted by one or more countries makes this scheme plausible.

regards,
balaji venkat

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Eric Osborne (eosborne= ) <eosborne@cisco.com> wrote:
Hi Balaji-

=A0 You're right that perception is by nature subjective. =A0Tony may h= ave looked at the fact that you're proposing BGP changes and decided it= was operations; I looked at it and saw that the bulk of your draft was abo= ut algorithms and graph theory and that it looked rather undeployable and d= ecided it was research-y. I'm fine with discussion of the draft continu= ing on RTGWG (not that I have any power to stop it anyways), and you might = want to try to answer the points I raised in my first mail as part of the d= iscussion you'd like to spark.


eric


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:balajivenkat299@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:54 PM
> To: Eric Osborne (eosborne); tony.t= i@tony.li
> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; rtgwg@ietf.or= g
> Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
>
> Including Tony Li
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami
> <balajivenkat299@gmail= .com> wrote:
>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Dear Eric,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a fe= w others
> entered for consideration in the IRTF.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Tony Li responded as follows...
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 So, the first question is whether or not this counts as re= search or
> engineering. =A0Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the = engineering side
> of the world. =A0It would then make sense to spark an email discussion= on the
> rtgwg mailing list.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 You have on the other hand branded this as research.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a = question of
> subjectivity ?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Your opinion would be most useful.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 thanks and regards,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 balaji venkat
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) > <eosborne@cisco.com> w= rote:
>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Some comments:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 1) =A0This is clearly a cut and paste of a= n academic paper, as
> your Acknowledgements indicate. =A0This sort of stuff rarely goes anyw= here in
> the IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. =A0To move towards
> standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stat= ing that
> the problem you solve is =A0a real problem for them, and that your sol= ution is
> both effective and deployable in practice. =A0Note that this support h= as more
> heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research depar= tment.
> Do you have such support?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 2) Your document assumes massive amounts o= f cooperation
> between ASes, including inter-AS TE LSPs. =A0You may want to investiga= te the
> operational feasibility of this cooperation.
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 eric
>
>
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > -----Original Message-----
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg= wg-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 A= M
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > To: rtgwg@ietf.org
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman= -rtgwg-inter-as-psp-
> 03
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Dear all,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > We would like the working group membe= rs opinion and
> comments on the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > following draft.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > http://tools.ietf.org/ht= ml/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-
> psp-03
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > Please feel free to comment on the sa= me.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 >
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > thanks and regards,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 > balaji venkat
>
>
>


--e89a8ff245c77f5e2804c85846f1-- From balajivenkat299@gmail.com Tue Aug 28 12:30:57 2012 Return-Path: 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 DCBD011E8106 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A-LQmHuViC2R for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D9411E8105 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so9783550pbb.31 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v+VVllwqps1cdONo46yvOeyXKJHyJ2VKuAK/F2/p2hE=; b=EnB/0a2AgHy/62NEQanGEM5P1AcRggOD7FHKa3t64P4VM5j2Fn/7Zvrvnp7jPGtJ8o xVZ81YEAh2Fm5XhUuZkIR84eLSgYE0bdeJcShtu3KDBdPBLuE98XU9w6v2qQkjX2V306 h6QgMCtgErW/szRj6XoFZhREcIZJH95MQOJcVnlNBJrZKCbPc5a0lno1hNJHHdAWddMO prIxAVGOnnfTZYMAIo5KYWKFkdLhUN2NwBn0q/k+2yviHjPA2U53uIbUKGPsmI+PLvkO JdirApp5vrPdzA1ls2uwUup9GzDkKB7jszpPs1ZCqOmuCvOW2SBGY30Ui+qFbEpCaMwZ JLjg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.87.227 with SMTP id bb3mr40270779pab.3.1346182256805; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.223.199 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:00:56 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042ef46538494304c8587b55 Cc: Shankar Raman M J , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:30:58 -0000 --f46d042ef46538494304c8587b55 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear Eric, Forgot to answer question number one. As far as operator support is concerned we will be familiarizing this as we go along with the major ISPs and seeking their opinion. Some informal conversations have shown the power reduction techniques are necessary more than ever. At this stage we are not even asking for standardization but just to convey the fact that we did some simulations and the work was a result of these experiments. The conference calls that we had with some providers with huge opex costs with respect to power especially core routers of the kind that are deployed today helped us gather more material from this research-y yet technically feasible solution. The mechanism proposed is primarily a PCE like architecture that constructs the graph with weighted edges as consumed power to available bandwidth ratios and which runs CSPF to do its job as proposed. Hope this clarifies. thanks and regards, balaji venkat On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote: > Some comments: > > 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your > Acknowledgements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the > IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. To move towards > standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating that > the problem you solve is a real problem for them, and that your solution > is both effective and deployable in practice. Note that this support has > more heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research > department. Do you have such support? > > 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, > including inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to investigate the operational > feasibility of this cooperation. > > > > > > eric > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami > > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM > > To: rtgwg@ietf.org > > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina > > Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 > > > > Dear all, > > > > We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the > > following draft. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 > > > > Please feel free to comment on the same. > > > > thanks and regards, > > balaji venkat > --f46d042ef46538494304c8587b55 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Eric,

Forgot to answer question number one.

As far as operator support is concerned we will be famili= arizing this as we go along with the major ISPs and seeking their opinion.<= /div>

Some informal conversations have shown the power reduct= ion techniques are necessary more than ever.

At th= is stage we are not even asking for standardization but just to convey the = fact that we did some simulations and the work was a result of these experi= ments. The conference calls that we had with some providers with huge opex = costs with respect to power especially core routers of the kind that are de= ployed today helped us gather more material from this research-y yet techni= cally feasible solution.

The mechanism proposed is primarily a PCE like architec= ture that constructs the graph with weighted edges as consumed power to ava= ilable bandwidth ratios and which runs CSPF to do its job as proposed.

Hope this clarifies.

thanks an= d regards,
balaji venkat

On Tue= , Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) <eosborne@cisco.com> wrote:
Some comments:

1) =A0This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic paper, as your Acknowl= edgements indicate. =A0This sort of stuff rarely goes anywhere in the IETF = as the IETF is not a research journal. =A0To move towards standardization y= ou'd need support from one or more operators stating that the problem y= ou solve is =A0a real problem for them, and that your solution is both effe= ctive and deployable in practice. =A0Note that this support has more heft i= f it comes from the operations side, not from the research department. =A0D= o you have such support?

2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation between ASes, inclu= ding inter-AS TE LSPs. =A0You may want to investigate the operational feasi= bility of this cooperation.





eric


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org= [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.o= rg] On Behalf
> Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM
> To: rtgwg@ietf.org
> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina
> Subject: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03
>
> Dear all,
>
> We would like the working group members opinion and comments on the > following draft.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-int= er-as-psp-03
>
> Please feel free to comment on the same.
>
> thanks and regards,
> balaji venkat

--f46d042ef46538494304c8587b55-- From tony.li@tony.li Tue Aug 28 13:13:11 2012 Return-Path: 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 8A41821F8514 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:13:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.972, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7w2MnnmMAVYh for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe2d:43:76:96:30:17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CB521F84E2 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.44]) by qmta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sFSk1j0030x6nqcAALDAhq; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:13:10 +0000 Received: from [10.154.200.76] ([128.107.239.233]) by omta12.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id sLCt1j00m52qHCY8YLCwce; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:13:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tony Li In-Reply-To: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F551AAB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:12:53 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0CBA9D6C-4EAC-4809-BA54-8927E26A15E5@tony.li> References: <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F5513D8@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <20ECF67871905846A80F77F8F4A275720F551AAB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> To: "Eric Osborne (eosborne)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Shankar Raman M J , "tony.ti@tony.li" , "rtgwg@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:13:11 -0000 Hi Balaji, And what happens normally here is that RG/WG chairs discuss and come to = some decision. However, given the tone of your previous private email, I'm not sure = that collaboration within either IETF or IRTF is appropriate. Regards, Tony On Aug 28, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) wrote: > Hi Balaji- >=20 > You're right that perception is by nature subjective. Tony may have = looked at the fact that you're proposing BGP changes and decided it was = operations; I looked at it and saw that the bulk of your draft was about = algorithms and graph theory and that it looked rather undeployable and = decided it was research-y. I'm fine with discussion of the draft = continuing on RTGWG (not that I have any power to stop it anyways), and = you might want to try to answer the points I raised in my first mail as = part of the discussion you'd like to spark. >=20 >=20 > eric >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:balajivenkat299@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:54 PM >> To: Eric Osborne (eosborne); tony.ti@tony.li >> Cc: Shankar Raman M J; rtgwg@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: Discussion on draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp-03 >>=20 >> Including Tony Li >>=20 >>=20 >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami >> wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Dear Eric, >>=20 >> Here is an attempt that we made to get this draft and a few = others >> entered for consideration in the IRTF. >>=20 >> Tony Li responded as follows... >>=20 >> So, the first question is whether or not this counts as research = or >> engineering. Glancing at it, it looks to me like you're on the = engineering side >> of the world. It would then make sense to spark an email discussion = on the >> rtgwg mailing list. >>=20 >> You have on the other hand branded this as research. >>=20 >> Is there a different picture IRTF and IETF see or is it a = question of >> subjectivity ? >>=20 >> Your opinion would be most useful. >>=20 >> thanks and regards, >> balaji venkat >>=20 >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) >> wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Some comments: >>=20 >> 1) This is clearly a cut and paste of an academic = paper, as >> your Acknowledgements indicate. This sort of stuff rarely goes = anywhere in >> the IETF as the IETF is not a research journal. To move towards >> standardization you'd need support from one or more operators stating = that >> the problem you solve is a real problem for them, and that your = solution is >> both effective and deployable in practice. Note that this support = has more >> heft if it comes from the operations side, not from the research = department. >> Do you have such support? >>=20 >> 2) Your document assumes massive amounts of cooperation >> between ASes, including inter-AS TE LSPs. You may want to = investigate the >> operational feasibility of this cooperation. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> eric >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg- >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf >> > Of Balaji venkat Venkataswami >> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:10 AM >> > To: rtgwg@ietf.org >> > Cc: Shankar Raman M J; Gaurav Raina >> > Subject: Discussion on = draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as-psp- >> 03 >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > We would like the working group members opinion and >> comments on the >> > following draft. >> > >> > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-inter-as- >> psp-03 >> > >> > Please feel free to comment on the same. >> > >> > thanks and regards, >> > balaji venkat >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >=20