ssage
Subject:New Version Notification for
draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-01.txt
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:50:31 -0700
From:
To: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
CC: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr-01.txt has been
successfully submitt
repairing PEs are
only egress PEs
All comments are most welcomed
Thanks
Ahmed
On 10/30/2011 4:26 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-idr-bgp-repair-label-03.txt has
> been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the IETF
>
If I understand the concern correctly, the issue is that the PE is used
as a remote LFA even though the PE is not connected to links with enough
bandwidth.
A quick solution is to configure the protecting/repairing routers to
only consider certain routers as rLFAs. Admin tags or routing policy can
-bashandy-bgp-frr-vector-label-00.txt
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 07:05:43 -0700
From:
To:
CC: ,
A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-bgp-frr-vector-label-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename:draft-bashandy-bgp-frr
Thanks a lot for the comments. See Inline. Look for "AB:"
Thanks
Ahmed
On 7/15/2012 2:46 AM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Hi Ahmed,
>
> Encouraged by your kind invitation let me first try to clarify few
> things reg the proposal.
>
>> ii. If "rL" is per-VRF, then pop *two* labels and forward the
>>
:
>
> Ahmed:
>
>
>
> Can provide a short comparison of this BGP frr with past attempts for
> BGP FRR?
>
>
>
> If you wish a list of the BGP FRR drafts, please let me know.
>
>
>
> sue
>
>
>
> *From:*idr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:idr-boun...@i
Hi,
May be I understood the source of confusion regarding paths
The draft does not require modifications to existing prefix
advertisements rules or implementations. All the draft is saying is that
if a prefix satisfies the conditions for attaching and advertising "rL"
and the prefix is being adver
Robert,
See comments inline. This time look for "AB3:"
Thanks
Ahmed
On 7/19/2012 11:39 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> Ahmed,
>
> > May be I understood the source of confusion regarding paths
>> The draft does not require modifications to existing prefix
>> advertisements rules or implementations. Al
It looks like I am going to re-iterate some of the statements that you
seem to avoid (I don't know why)
See replies inline. Look for AB4
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:rob...@raszuk.net] Sent: Saturday, July 21,
2012 10:28 AM
To: Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
) : Ahmed Bashandy
Clarence Filsfils
Prodosh Mohapatra
Filename: draft-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt
Pages : 19
Date: 2012-10-01
Abstract:
In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging
) : Ahmed Bashandy
Clarence Filsfils
Prodosh Mohapatra
Filename: draft-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt
Pages : 19
Date: 2012-10-01
Abstract:
In the network comprising thousands of iBGP peers exchanging
most welcomed
Thanks
Ahmed
Original Message
Subject:New Version Notification for draft-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:08:39 -0700
From:
To:
CC: ,
A new version of I-D, draft-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ahmed
he feedback that has already been provided.
Chris
*From:* Jeff Tantsura mailto:jefftant.i...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2018 4:27 PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy mailto:abashandy.i...@gmail.com>>; rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org
<mailto:rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org>; Stewart
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
*From:*Ahmed Bashandy [mailto:abashandy.i...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2018 10:54 PM
*To:* Alexander Vainshtein ; Robert
Raszuk ; Chris Bowers
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com;
draft-bashandy
.
Regards,
Sasha
Office: +972-39266302
Cell: +972-549266302
Email: alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com
*From:*Ahmed Bashandy [mailto:abashandy.i...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, July 9, 2018 10:54 PM
*To:* Alexander Vainshtein ; Robert
Raszuk ; Chris Bowers
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr
July 12, 2018 12:49 PM
*To:* Stewart Bryant <mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>>
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org <mailto:rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org>;
pfr...@gmail.com <mailto:pfr...@gmail.com>;
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-...@ietf.org
<mailto:draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-
Sorry for the late reply
I am not aware of any non-disclosed IPR
Ahmed
On 8/9/18 9:17 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
I’m not aware of non-disclosed IPR.
Thanks,
Regards,
--Bruno
*From:*rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Bowers
*Sent:* Thursday, August 09, 2
Thanks a lot for the review and the detailed comments
I will work on addressing them
Ahmed
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 10:00 PM Yingzhen Qu wrote:
> Hi authors,
>
>
>
> Happy New Year!
>
>
>
> I did a review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-10 for shepherd write-up.
> Thanks for working on this informatio
I am not aware of any undisclosed IPR related to this draft
Ahmed
On Sat, Jan 4, 2020, 3:51 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Dear RTGWG,
>
> Happy New Year All!
>
> As we are progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic towards last call we would
> like to we would like to poll for IPR.
>
> If you are aware o
I uploaded version 11 to IETF. See repond inline "#Ahmed"
Thanks again for the thorough review
Ahmed
On 1/3/20 12:00 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
Hi authors,
Happy New Year!
I did a review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-10 for shepherd write-up.
Thanks for working on this informational document, an
I just pinged Pradosh. Hopefully he will see the ping abd have time to reply
Ahmed
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 6:01 AM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> I’d like to thank Clarence and Cisco team for helping out and working with
> Cisco lawyers to make IPR disclosure available on such a short term!
> Now we are
As a coauthor, I support the publication of this document
Ahmed
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 11:38 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> I support publication. Looks like mainly editorial changes since the last
> time it was WG last called.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>
>
> *From: *rtgwg on behalf of Jeff Tantsura
Thanks a lot for the detailed comments.
I will address them shortly
Ahmed
On 1/10/21 1:48 PM, Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt
Review result: Ready with Issues
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews
Thanks for the comments
I will fix the nits shortly
ahmed
On 1/17/21 12:57 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Nits
This document proposes a hierarchical and shared forwarding chain organization
that allows traffic to be restored to pre-ca
Thanks a lot for the detailed review
I will address the comments shortly
Ahmed
On 1/29/21 10:52 AM, Bruno Decraene via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Bruno Decraene
Review result: Has Issues
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directora
I am not aware of any IPR that has not been declared
Thanks
Ahmed
On Fri, May 7, 2021, 12:30 PM Stewart Bryant
wrote:
> This is an IPR check on draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
>
> Please can all authors and contributors confirm that all relevant IPR that
> they are aware of has been de
Sorry for the late reply.
See response inline #Ahmed. . The response refers to version 15 which I
just published to address your comments as well as other reviewers comments
Thanks
Ahmed
On 1/10/21 1:48 PM, Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Theresa Enghardt
Review result: R
Sorry for the late reply
See response inline #Ahmed. The response refers to version 15 which I
just published to address your comments as well as other reviewers' comments
Thanks
Ahmed
On 1/17/21 12:57 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review result: Ready with Ni
Thanks a lot for the comments.
See responses inline #Ahmed. They refer to version 15 which I just
published to address your comments as weel the comments of other reviewers.
Thanks
Ahmed
On 1/29/21 10:52 AM, Bruno Decraene via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Bruno Decraene
Review result: Has
great
I'll change the wording accordingly
Ahmed
On 11/1/23 10:09 PM, Gyan Mishra wrote:
Hi Sasha, Bruno & Stewart
Thank you for going over my OPSDIR review in detail.
I am good with the latest updated verbiage that Bruno had given.
Comments in-line
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 8:41 AM Alexander
thanks a lot for the comments
One important clarification. Using the post convergence path is not a
constraint. In other words, using Ti-LFA does not require a repair path
to be post-convergence
Other than this clarification, I tend to agree with what you mentioned.
A couple of small comment
Stewart,
Bruno and Sasha have already responded to your original email.
I have other responses to this email which, at best, shows a severe lack
of understanding of the draft. See inline starting with #Ahmed
Ahmed
On 11/2/23 12:29 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Let me ask a fundamental questio
I also tried again and got the same message before
Can't join meeting
The meeting number of meeting link is invalid. Check the number of link
and then try again
Ahmed
On 11/8/23 7:59 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Yingzhen and all,
Tried the link, it says “Private room not found”.
Rega
I tried to join from a different computer and I got "*The Personal Room
cannot be found*"
Ahmed
On 11/8/23 7:59 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Yingzhen and all,
Tried the link, it says “Private room not found”.
Regards,
Sasha
*From:* rtgwg *On Behalf Of *Yingzhen Qu
*Sent:* Wednesday,
thanks a lot for the summary
I made the modifications and sent it to the co-authors. Once I get reply
I will upload version 12
I will be traveling in the next few hours and will be back home next
Sunday afternoon. So I will be slow in replying
Thanks
Ahmed
On 11/10/23 1:04 AM, Yingzhen
2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/ref4271.txt
Alvaro.
On April 1, 2023 at 7:58:02 PM, Ahmed Bashandy wrote:
...
> > On August 2, 2022 at 4:23:53 PM, Alvaro Retana
(aretana.i...@gmail.com (mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com)) wrote:
...
> > > After reading t
I am not aware of any IPR that has not been disclosed
Ahmed
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023, 10:23 AM Yingzhen Qu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an IPR call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
> (draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-11 - Topology Independent Fast
> Reroute using Segment Routing
> <
g Area Working Group (RTGWG) WG of
the IETF.
Title: Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
Authors: Stephane Litkowski
Ahmed Bashandy
Clarence Filsfils
Pierre Francois
Bruno Decraene
Daniel Voyer
Name:
Question regarding removal of references to
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop.
My understanding is that you are suggesting I remove the following
bullet from Section 2
* - Segment Routing may be used for prevention of such micro-loops
as described in [I-D.bashandy-rtgwg-s
/M 301 502-1347
/
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 10:33 PM Ahmed Bashandy
wrote:
Question regarding removal of references to
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop.
My understanding is that you are suggesting I remove the following
bullet from Section 2
* - Segment Rou
t; *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 1:47 AM Ahmed Bashandy
> wrote:
>
>> OK
>>
>> I'll make the change in the next few days and reply to this email with
>> version 13
>>
>>
>> Ahmed
>>
>>
>> On 1
As a co-author, I support publication of the document.
Ahmed
On 1/18/24 3:45 PM, Yingzhen Qu wrote:
Hi,
This starts the Working Group Last Call for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
(draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13 - Topology Independent
Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
Thanks for the comment
Regarding the paragraph from section 6 that you are referring to, this
paragraph was part of an example and not a recommendation.
RFC5286 and RFC7490 are referred to in
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa. So IMO it would be redundant to
add any recommendation in
Thanks for the thorough review
I am in the process of uploading version 15 of the document. So whenever
I say "fixed", "changed", "modified",..., etc, I am referring to version 15
See inline comments at #Ahmed
Ahmed
On 4/16/24 1:14 PM, John Scudder via Datatracker wrote:
John Scudder has
Thank you for the detailed review
I uploaded version 14 of the draft.
See #Ahmed for response to the comments
Ahmed
On 4/17/24 5:04 AM, Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker wrote:
Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13: Di
osed rewrite:
"
The case where this active segment is followed by another adjacency
segment is distinguished from the case where it is followed by a
node segment.
"
G/
*From:*Gunter van de Velde (Nokia)
*Sent:* Wednesday, May 8, 2024 6:05 PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy ; The IESG
*
s of TI-LFA should deal with the
occurrence of multiple unrelated failures in accordance to the IP
Fast Reroute Framework [RFC5714].
NEW:
To repeat, the reason for this is that the sentence is not actionable
and implies something incorrect about the status and content of RFC 5714.
Thanks a lot for the comments
Version 16 addresses the comments
See #Ahmed
On 2/28/24 7:36 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review result: Has Nits
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate
Sorry for the garbled subject. I am re-sending the reply with subject
intact for easy tracking
Thanks a lot for the comments
Version 16 addresses the comments
See #Ahmed
On 2/28/24 7:36 AM, Ben Niven-Jenkins via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Ben Niven-Jenkins
Review result: Has Nits
Hello,
For the comment about the IPR, the IPR for the draft at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
says that draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa has replaced the
individual draft
Thanks
Ahmed
On 3/2/24 1:50 AM, Roni Even via Datat
Thanks a lot for the through review
I published version 17 to address your comments
See #Ahmed inline
Ahmed
On 4/10/24 1:39 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13: No Objection
When respond
This is what I suggested during the presentation yesterday: to replace
the word "key" in the abstract
If that small edit would clear the confusion, I will go ahead and do it
Thanks
Ahmed
On 11/5/24 7:52 AM, Alexander Vainshtein wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to clarify the position (in th
-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-18.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa
Revision: 18
Title:Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
Date: 2024-11-13
Group:rtgwg
Page
Stewart,
I looked back till version -00 of the draft and I was NOT able to find a
version that says post-conversion is a MUST-have or MANDATORY.
But I may have overlooked such version.
Because you are the shepherd of this document and I am sure you have
reviewed it tens (if not hundreds) of
Yingzhen,
As you mention, Section 11 title is "*_/Advantages/_* ..." and not
"mandatory", "must", "required",..., etc. Section 11 was moved to an
appendix based on comments, not based on a change in the stance of the
draft about the repair path being congruent to post-convergence or not
As f
come to
a rough consensus on what needs to be addressed in the document
(if anything) and whether relaxation of the mandatory requirement
is acceptable.
Thanks!
Jim
*From: *Ahmed Bashandy
*Date: *Thursday, November 21, 2024 at 2:46 PM
*To: *Ketan Talaulikar , John
ssage. For convenience, the bottom line (TL;DR
as it were) is that I think the conversation that was started with
Stewart and Sasha at the mic line at IETF-121 needs to be worked
through. Once the RTGWG chairs and AD are satisfied, I'll abide by that.
Now the long version:
On Nov 13, 2024, at
I forgot to include this latest change in my previous email
The diffs attached to this reply contains all your previous suggestions
plus this latest pne
Thanks
Ahmed
On 11/15/24 7:23 AM, Ketan Talaulikar wrote:
Hi John,
Disclaimer: I am just catching up on the discussion on this draft. I
TF-121
needs to be worked through. Once the RTGWG chairs and AD are
satisfied, I'll abide by that.
Now the long version:
On Nov 13, 2024, at 3:01 PM, Ahmed Bashandy
wrote:
I uploaded version 18 of the ti-lfa draft to address the two
Thanks a lot for the comments
I adopted all the suggestions in version 21 at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-21.txt
Please take a look at it in case I missed something
Ahmed
On 2/6/25 1:29 PM, John Scudder wrote:
Hi All,
Thanks for all your work on
most welcomed
Thanks
Ahmed
Original Message
Subject:New Version Notification for draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 02:04:14 -0700
From:
To: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy
, Prodosh Mohapatra , "Pradosh
Mohapatra"
A n
y-rtgwg-bgp-pic
Thanks,
Bruno
*From:*rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ahmed
Bashandy (bashandy)
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2015 11:12 AM
*To:* rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* Pradosh Mohapatra
*Subject:* Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00.txt
Hi
This
till install the
label of the external router, in addition to the best route. If the
route is non labeled, the problem is harder and typically not solved
in the general case.
Ideally, the above point would also need to be clarified in the BGP
external draft.
Thanks
Regards,
Bruno
*From:*Ahm
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:
To: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy
, Prodosh Mohapatra , "Pr
,
Jeff and Chris
From: rtgwg mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org>>
on behalf of Jeff Tantsura <mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com>>
Date: Monday, November 9, 2015 at 17:47
To: "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" <mailto:basha...@cisco.com>>, Chris Bowers <mailto:cbow..
Thanks a lot for the valuable comments.
I will try the address the comments in the next spin
Ahmed
On 4/20/2016 6:53 AM, bruno.decra...@orange.com wrote:
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this
draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or
r
Hi,
Thanks a lot for the detailed review.
I submitted version 01. I CCed Jeff and Rob Shakir, who volunteered to
be a shepherd (Thanks a lot):):)
I have restructured the document to address your comment. Besides I went
over all the "Minor issues" as well as "nits" and corrected them, except
Hi,
I have just submitted version 01 few moments ago to address the comments
Bruno. I replied to the email thread "RtgDir review:
draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic-00" with my comments
I have CCed Rob and you on that thread
Ahmed
On 6/10/2016 7:59 AM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
Hi Rob,
Thank you for vo
Stewart,
You are stating the most obvious:)
For a feature to work, e.g. encapsulating into an RSVP tunnel, the entry
point of the packet must be able to support that feature. That is not a
problem. That how the entire world works:)
SR-based ti-uloop avoidance is no different. So if a packet a
the updated version and your below answers.
Looks good to me.
Please find below 2 minor typos
Thanks.
Bruno
:s/unreacreachable/unreachable
:s/hierarchal/hierarchical
*From:*rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ahmed
Bashandy (bashandy)
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 6:36 PM
Sorry for the late reply. I have uploaded a new version to address your
very useful comments:)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-bgp-pic/
See replies below "#Ahmed"
Thanks a lot
Ahmed
On 8/11/2016 6:39 PM, Rob Shakir wrote:
Ahmed, Clarence, Pradosh,
I did a review of dr
Hi,
We would like to request the wg adoption of
"draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop". This draft replaces
draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-01
The draft was presented last summer during IETF-96 in Berlin
Thanks
Ahmed
___
rtgwg ma
Hi
We would like to request the WG adoption of
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00. The draft replaces
draft-francois-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-04
The draft was presented in IETF-96 in Berlin last summer
Thanks
Ahmed
___
rtgwg maili
coming your way.
There should be at least 3 implementations of TI-LFA (to my knowledge), would
you please gather this data and if possible implementation report and include
it in the draft?
Thanks!
Cheers,
Jeff
On 5/12/17, 14:08, "Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)" wrote:
Hi
Hi,
The comments from Stewart where placed in the link
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-00-rtgdir-early-bryant-2017-05-30/
instead of being sent to the maling list.
I have cut-and-pasted the review comments from the link above and put my
reply inline.
Thanks a lot for the quick response.
See inline "#Ahmed2"
On 7/7/2017 5:39 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Hi Ahmed
Trimming this to the issues we need to discuss.
==
This document provides a mechanism leveraging Segment Routing to
ensure loop-freeness during the IGP reconvergence proce
f.org
Reply-To: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment
Routing
Authors : Ahmed Bashandy
Cla
From:
To: Clarence Filsfils , Ahmed Bashandy
, Stephane Litkowski
, Pierre Francois
A new version of I-D, draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-uloop-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Ahmed Bashandy and posted to the
IETF repository.
Name: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment
khi
*From:*rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ahmed
Bashandy (bashandy)
*Sent:* 17 July 2017 12:56
*To:* rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
*Subject:* Fwd: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
Hi,
A new versio
t expectation for SRLG?
Thanks,
Sikhi
*From:*Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) [mailto:basha...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* 05 August 2017 01:19
*To:* Sikhivahan Gundu ; rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-
See my reply to Sikhi
Thanks
Ahmed
On 8/7/2017 2:13 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 07/08/2017 06:45, Sikhivahan Gundu wrote:
By “ambiguity”, I meant that backup calculation taking SRLG into
account is based on speculated topology, whereas computation of
post-convergence path, ie, SPF,
*out of scope* of the draft and hence I have no plans on
addressing it.
I hope you don't insist on pushing out-of-scope topics down the throat of this
draft :)
Ahmed
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 12:48 PM
To: Ahmed Bashandy (bas
mally treat a node as an SRLG), but only a line interface has
failed.
- Stewart
On 07/08/2017 21:04, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote:
Stewart
I already replied to Sikhi explaining the concept of the SRLG used in
this draft and the intent to make it even clearer.
IMO the scope of the dra
Hi,
The behavior described in section 5.3 is clear:
- The top label of incoming packet to node "S" is either a prefix SID
owned by node "F" or an adjacency SID for (S,F)
- If the link from node "S" to node "F" is up, then the normal behavior
for node "S" is to apply penultimate hop popping (PHP
I do not understand the question
Ahmed
On 11/23/2017 5:15 AM, Huzhibo wrote:
Because the normal FRR can not protect the designated node of SR-TE, a
method is provided to perform the label POP action by the penultimate
hop of the specified node replacing the specified node and forward it
to
based on customer's space.
So I think the point to document is what is the expected behavior of S
node in case of new top label is unknown. It is ok to say drop it, but
I think it needs to be clearly stated.
Best,
Robert
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
mailto:ba
Bryant wrote:
On 28/11/2017 12:04, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote:
- The top label of incoming packet to node "S" is either a prefix SID
owned by node "F" or an adjacency SID for (S,F)
If it is an adjacency SID for (S,F) then you are violating the
original intent of
tion-for-sr-te-paths overlaps with
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa :)
My 2c
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:04, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
wrote:
_
Thanks for the feedback
See inline
Ahmed
On 11/28/2017 8:54 AM, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
mailto:basha...@cisco.com>>wrote:
Hi,
The behavior described in section 5.3 is clear:
- The top label of incoming pac
all if the downstream node fails.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:02, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
wrote:
Stewart,
I am sure you are aware that ISIS and OSPF adj-SID advertisements
in
available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment
Routing
Authors : Ahmed Bashandy
Clarence Filsfils
Bruno Decraene
Stephane
91 matches
Mail list logo
