[rtgwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi Shasha, See inline. Regards, Dirk 1. I have a question about usage of protected and unprotected Adj-SIDs in TI-LFA: * In Section 10 “Usage of Adjacency segments in the repair list”, the draft

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi Yingzhen/John/Ahmed/All, I have some text suggestions for your consideration. a) Abstract v17 A key aspect of TI-LFA is the FRR path selection approach establishing protection over the expected post-convergence paths from the point of local repair, reducing the operational need to control th

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi Ketan, On Nov 15, 2024, at 9:48 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: I believe my text proposals do not dilute the post-convergence aspect of TI-LFA. Please let me know if you see it otherwise. No argument. I was harking back to the debate I addressed at (probably too much) length in my message to

[rtgwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

I agree with Dirk. However, we also have the more recent https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-algorithm-related-adjacency-sid/ Thanks, Ketan On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 2:24 PM Dirk Goethals (Nokia) wrote: > Hi Shasha, > See inline. > Regards, > Dirk > > >1. I have a question about

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi John, Disclaimer: I am just catching up on the discussion on this draft. I also missed the WG session due to a conflict but have caught up with the recording. And I am not speaking for the authors. Below is an additional text proposal (over and above what I have shared previously) to cover, wh

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi John, I believe my text proposals do not dilute the post-convergence aspect of TI-LFA. Please let me know if you see it otherwise. Thanks, Ketan On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 8:07 PM John Scudder wrote: > Hi Ketan, > > Thanks. It seems to me, though, that there is a qualitative difference > betw

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi John, This comment was towards the discussion on whether TI-LFA computed repair path is always a post-convergence path or not. I meant to convey that it practically may not be so for all types of protection schemes and failures. This is nothing new. Thanks, Ketan On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 7:51

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi Ketan, Thanks. It seems to me, though, that there is a qualitative difference between computing a path that’s intended to be post-convergence, but having that intent foiled because of known limitations in the design, and not even trying to compute a post-convergence path. Let’s suppose the "

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

[trimmed cc; presumably copying the WG is sufficient] Hi Ketan, Can you help me understand what you’re driving toward with this comment? On Nov 15, 2024, at 5:44 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: In addition to the above text change suggestions, I would remind that strict following of post-converge

[rtgwg] Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt

Hi Ketan, On Nov 15, 2024, at 10:23 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote: Below is an additional text proposal (over and above what I have shared previously) to cover, what I think, may be the essence of your discuss. It is possible though that I've still missed your point. As I mentioned in my earlier