Support adoption. There are mature implementations of this. thanks--shyam
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > This is the latest version of the BGP-PIC draft that was presented on > Nov/2/15 during the IETF-94 meeting in Yokohama > We have addressed the comments as follows: > - Added statements in multiple places, including the abstract, indicating > the need for more than one BGP path > - Added example in Section 2.3.3 with illustrations in Figure 4,5,6 on how > to handle a platform that does not support the required number of hierarchy > levels. Section 4.3 explains the gradual degradation of BGP-PIC benefit as > a result of the reduced platform support > - For handling unlabeled traffic in case PE-CE failure, the last bullet in > Section 4.2.2 indicates that an egress PE must always treat a core facing > path as a backup path to avoid looping the packet in case of PE-CE link > failure. The first statement in Section 5.1 indicates that the draft does > not cover the failure of a CE node > > > We would like to request adoption of the draft. > > Thanks > > Ahmed > > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:05:59 -0800 From: > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> To: Clarence > Filsfils <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Ahmed Bashandy > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, Prodosh Mohapatra > <[email protected]> <[email protected]>, "Pradosh Mohapatra" > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt > has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the > IETF repository. > > Name: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic > Revision: 02 > Title: Abstract > Document date: 2015-11-09 > Group: Individual Submission > Pages: 26 > URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02.txt > Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic/ > Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 > Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-02 > > Abstract: > In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging millions > of routes, many routes are reachable via more than one path. Given > the large scaling targets, it is desirable to restore traffic after > failure in a time period that does not depend on the number of BGP > prefixes. In this document we proposed an architecture by which > traffic can be re-routed to ECMP or pre-calculated backup paths in a > timeframe that does not depend on the number of BGP prefixes. The > objective is achieved through organizing the forwarding chains in a > hierarchical manner and sharing forwarding elements among the maximum > possible number of routes. The proposed technique achieves prefix > independent convergence while ensuring incremental deployment, > complete transparency and automation, and zero management and > provisioning effort. It is noteworthy to mention that the benefits of > BGP-PIC are hinged on the existence of more than one path whether as > ECMP or primary-backup. > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > The IETF Secretariat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
