Requests for RTGWG agenda items

Please sent in your requests for RTGWG agenda items. We need to finalize the agenda by Nov 2. RTGWG will be meeting Thurs Nov 17 1300-1500 Afternoon Session I Thanks, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo

MRT algorithm draft submitted

We have just submitted a draft describing the algorithm (with the associated logic and the minimal graph theory needed to understand it). The draft is draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm. Any feedback on the algorithm or draft would be appreciated. Thanks, Alia _

RTGWG Agenda for IETF 82

sion Alia Atlas &15 mins Alvaro Retano 2) Composite Link Framework & draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework & Ning So15 mins Requirements draft-ietf-rtgwg-c

fast-reroute with maximally redundant trees

As you may have seen, we updated draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01 and have also added draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-00, which describes the logic and methods for the MRT algorithm. At IETF 82, we expect to have a good amount of time for questions and discussion about Fast-Reroute w

Re: Charter Update (Discussion)

We do have framework RFCs, but not requirements documents. A question that we're actively looking for feedback on is whether the WG wants to focus first on complete coverage solutions in the hope of having a small set of solutions, on solutions that solve pieces of the problem for some networks, o

Re: Charter Update (Discussion)

Hi Mike, Yes, I certainly agree that it is a tradeoff between complexity (all aspects) and coverage. I'm concerned that we don't end up with too many different and minimally compatible solutions. Alia On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Mike Shand wrote: > On 07/11/2011 17:47, Ali

volunteers for scribe?

It'd be good to have a volunteer or two for scribe before our meeting on Thurs. Any volunteers before we have to waste time on this in the meeting? Thanks, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Re: Charter Update (Discussion)

IPFRR has always included LDP-FRR as well. Both are clearly hop-by-hop distributed routing - hence the wording in the charter. There's RSVP-TE FRR and that is clearly for explicitly routed paths - which is clearly not hop-by-hop distributed routing. Since an RSVP-TE LSP can be a forwarding adja

Re: To detail what I said at the mike today when we talked FRF

I think that it would be very beneficial to discuss this work in rtgwg. There may be some experience we can bring to bear. I personally am not familiar with the different characteristics of 6lowpan compared to IP. Could you summarize or send a pointer? Regards, Alia On Friday, November 18, 201

Re: Adoption of the MRT Architecture Draft as WG Document

Support (of course, as a co-author) On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Retana, Alvaro wrote: > Hi! > > > > As discussed at the meeting in Taipei, this e-mail is a call for adoption of > the MRT Architecture draft as a WG item.  There was strong support in the > room. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/

Re: draft-shand-remote-lfa-00 / RFC 5286 / draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability => using low BW link as LFA to protect high BW link

Stephane, For local links, it makes sense to have the ability to administratively allow/disallow their use as an alternate. This is what I implemented when at Avici. If you read RFC5286, step 3 in the example algorithm in Sec 3.6 says " 3. If H_h.link is administratively allowed to be used as

heads up - RTGWG may be scheduled Friday morning

Before everyone has definitely made their travel plans (I hope), I want to give a heads up that it is very likely that RTGWG will be meeting on Friday morning of IETF. It isn't definite, but we do need more time than was initially apparent. Regards, Alia _

time to request slots for IETF 83 RTGWG meeting

This would be a good time to request time-slots for RTGWG at IETF 83. RTGWG will be meeting on Thursday March 29 from 17:40-19:40. We have already had a few slot requests, of course. When requesting a slot, please a) include the relevant draft b) specify how long you'd like - both maximum and

MRT Multicast Architecture draft

Hi, As discussed at last IETF, we have pulled the multicast fast-reroute and multicast live-live sections out of the general MRT architecture draft and turned that into its own draft. That draft is http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-atlas-rtgwg-mrt-mc-arch-00.txt and contains considerably more deta

agenda is up for IETF83

We have uploaded the agenda for RTGWG. It can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-rtgwg.htm Please send any comments to the list. Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

slightly updated agenda

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/agenda/agenda-83-rtgwg.htm This has added two drafts (draft-bashandy-idr-bgp-repair-label and draft-bashandy-bgp-edge-node-frr) which discuss fast-reroute for BGP traffic. It is going to be a very busy meeting. I would strongly encourage everyone to read drafts

Re: RTGWG Composite Link Framework

I would strongly recommend reading at least the substantially extended and improved Composite Link Framework draft. We do not have a lot of time in our agenda to discuss the composite-link work - so informed discussion on the list and in our meeting would be quite useful. Speaking personally, I f

Please send presentations by Weds 12pm

Please send in all presentations to Alvaro and myself by Weds at noon. This will give us time to have the presentations up and, hopefully, let the WG look at them before our meeting Thurs early evening. Thanks, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org

opinions on adoption of draft-shand-remote-lfa as a WG draft

draft-shand-remote-lfa was presented favorably this last IETF. There is known IPR associated with it on file ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1770/ ) This draft presents a solution for IP/LDP fast-reroute that does not guarantee 100% coverage but can substantially improve coverage over LFAs. W

draft-shand-remote-lfa adopted as WG draft

>From the discussion and poll on the list, it is clear that there is good support for adopting draft-shand-remote-lfa as an RTGWG draft. There was also very good feedback about the need for further details on the applicability and coverage of this method - as it pertains to node protection, prefix

poll on adopting draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00 as WG draft

This is to start a poll and discussion about whether RTGWG should adopt draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-00 as a WG draft. Please respond with comments and reasoning and if you have read the draft. At our last meeting, very few people indicated that they had read the draft. Authors, please indicat

poll to adopt draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-05 as a WG draft

This email is to start a poll and discussion on whether to adopt draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-05 as an RTGWG draft. Please respond with opinions, comments, and whether you have read the draft. Last IETF, there were very few people who had read the draft. Authors, please indicate if there is an

poll on draft-karan-mofrr-02 to become a WG draft

This email is to start a poll and discussion on whether draft-karan-mofrr-02 should become an RTGWG draft. Please include comments, details, and whether you have read the draft. The earlier version was presented positively to the PIM WG as well. Authors, please indicate whether there is any IPR

Re: IPR Disclosure: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)'s Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-01

, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <20120618155048.18575.97874.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com> > IETF Secretariat writes: > >> >> Dear Gabor Sandor Envedi, Alia Atlas, Robert Kebler, Andras Csaszar, >> Russ White, Mike Shand, Maciek Konst

drafts accepted as WG drafts

Based on the polled responses, draft-karan-mofrr-02 draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-06 draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases-01 are all accepted as RTGWG drafts. As soon as possible (once the tools accept -00 drafts again), please republish them as WG drafts named: draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr

agenda items for IETF 84 RTGWG

RTGWG is meeting this IETF on Tues July 31 from 15:20 to 16:50 (Afternoon Session II). Please send all agenda requests to myself and Alvaro. Presentations are requested before IETF starts (by Friday July 27). Thanks, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ie

Re: agenda items for IETF 84 RTGWG

I have heard of no requests outside of: an update on MRT http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-greennet Are there really no other requests? We're going to be setting the agenda tomorrow. Alia On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 2:31 PM,

presentations for tomorrow are up

For those few who can't wait until tomorrow, you can see tomorrow's RTGWG presentations today. They've been uploaded. Thanks to everyone for getting their presentations in. Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinf

Fwd: NomCom 2012-2013: Third Call for Volunteers

urred and I would request that you resend your email. The 98 qualified individuals who have thus far volunteered are listed below. I apologize for any errors in this list, please notify me of any errors as soon as possible. Sam Aldrin, Huawei Alia Atlas, Juniper Ignas Bagdonas, Cisco Marcelo Bagn

needed improvements to Remote LFA draft

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 belong

Remote LFA typo in example?

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

Re: Remote LFA typo in example?

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 li

Remote Participation for rtgwg: WebEx session information

-- Forwarded message -- From: Cindy Morgan Date: Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:42 PM Subject: Meeting invitation: rtgwg To: akat...@gmail.com Hello , Cindy Morgan invites you to attend this online meeting. Topic: rtgwg Date: Monday, November 5, 2012 Time: 1:00 pm, Eastern Standard Ti

Re: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

Stewart, I think it would be good to have the remote-LFA draft discuss and recommend what addresses to use, what requirements there are on routers to make it work (for IP or LDP), and what protocol gaps are identified. What is necessary for the PQ node to know to handle terminating an IP tunnel

Re: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

Peter, One of the goals of LFA & remote-LFA is for ease of manageability. Why are you pushing for requiring additional configuration, which I don't see as adding any benefit from the flexibility, instead of documenting the straightforward rules for automatic interoperabiity? Alia On Thu, Dec 1

Re: identifying IP address of targeted LDP session in draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-00

k wrote: > Alia, > > > On 13.12.2012 16:03, Alia Atlas wrote: > >> Peter, >> >> One of the goals of LFA & remote-LFA is for ease of manageability. Why >> are you pushing for requiring additional configuration, which I don't >> see as adding a

Re: Expiration impending:

That sounds good to me. I would really like to see the composite link work advance - preferably by or just after the next IETF. I encourage everyone to read and comment on it; I will do so as well and send comments separately. Alia On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >

Re: Expiration impending:

lis" > wrote: > > I agree with Curtis' suggested plan to advance CL Requirements now and > continue work on the other two drafts. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >> >> In message >

Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing community

There are two different aspects to power-aware routing that I think are of interest. The first is developing a framework and method for evaluating different possible solutions. We had a discussion of draft-retana-rtgwg-eacp-00 in RTGWG in July 2012. The second is examining and considering control

comments on draft-li-rtgwg-igp-ext-mrt-frr-00

I have read through this draft and have a number of comments. First, to simplify the signaling needed and reduce on-the-fly checking and computation of an MRT island, it would be preferable to have "well-known profiles" represented by particular flags. A profile that would be useful is something

comments on draft-li-rtgwg-ldp-mt-mrt-frr

I've done a read through on this draft and have the following comments: In Sec 3.1: "If there is no secondary route of LFA, the blue topology is preferred since it can be protected again by the red topology." This is incorrect. Please read the more recent draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture

seeking anonymized network topologies for MRT & fast-reroute analysis

(WG-chair hat firmly off) I am working on getting an analysis of the various fast-reroute technologies (MRT, not-via, optimal, Remote LFA) on different networks. Specifically, I want to update draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm with the method and results of analysis so that we can draw some co

WGLC on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirements-09

This is to start a working group last call on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirements-09. The WGLC will conclude on March 15; extra time is given to include the IETF meeting. Please read and send comments. Thanks, Alia & Alvaro ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@iet

comments on: draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-09

Just one quick comment - the last paragraph in the abstract "Current practice related to multipath is described briefly in an appendix." is incorrect. The abstract is something different (definitions); I think this dates from an earlier version and should be removed. Alia _

Fwd: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Monday, February 25

friendly reminder -- Forwarded message -- From: Internet-Drafts Administrator Date: Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM Subject: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Monday, February 25 To: IETF Announcement List Cc: i...@ietf.org This is a reminder that the Internet Draft Final S

remote participation

Is anyone planning on attending the WG meeting remotely? We can sign up for a meetecho session if that would be useful, but must do it soon. Please let me know. Also, volunteers for jabber scribes and minute-takers would be greatly welcome ahead of time. Regards, Alia ___

remote participation and meetecho

We have a meetecho session set-up for our meeting; the tutorial about how to use meetecho is at: http://ietf86.conf.meetecho.com/index.php/Tutorials We are still looking for a jabber scribe and minute taker. Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org htt

Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirements-09

be doing a WG Last Call on at least one before Berlin. Alia On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > This is to start a working group last call on > draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirements-09. > The WGLC will conclude on March 15; extra time is given to include the > IETF meetin

Fwd: [systers] Fwd: NomCom 2013-2014 Call for Volunteers - CORRECTED dates in first sentence

Please consider volunteering. Diversity in our NomCom volunteers is incredibly important. Particularly if you don't work for one of the standard large companies that usually has volunteers on NomCom, do think about it. I was on NomCom years ago and found it a very very valuable experience. Alia

any IPR on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases?

In preparation for a WG Last Call, could the authors please send to the mailing list whether they are aware of any IPR associated with draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-use-cases? Everyone else, if you know of any IPR, please send it to the list also. If you're not sure - read the draft ;-) thanks, Alia _

Re: Progressing with draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-00 ?

Hi Pierre, Thank you for starting the conversation and a quick intro on the differences. When I look at this draft and PLSN, what I see is that the PLR is definitionally either a type B router (since it has an alternate that is safe for forwarding traffic or for link up it's old primary) and that

Re: Progressing with draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-00 ?

whether we should change the doc to > answer your comments and come back > for a discussion based on ink-on-paper, or answer on the list. I am afraid > of a never-ending thread for the later :) > > Cheers, > > Pierre. > > On May 20, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:

meeting time requests

Alvaro has put in for a 1.5 hour slot for the Berlin meeting. Please let us know ASAP if you are would like significant time. The cut-off for session requests is Monday so if we need more time, we'll want to know very soon. Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rt

Re: draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa - ready for WGLC? - some comments and questions

Hi Levente, Welcome! Your email is certainly on-topic and generally appropriate. I think it also serves as a useful reminder that many who read our drafts benefit from clearly specified conditions and algorithms. Alia (WG chair hat on) On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Levente Csikor wrote: >

draft submission deadline - July 15 24:00 UTC

In what may be happy news for some of you, I just learned that the IESG has merged the two internet-draft deadlines. Both initial document (-00) and final documents can be submitted until July 15. But remember that we'd all like to read your fascinating ideas and mull them over - so sooner is

rtgwg scheduled for Friday, Afternoon Session 1

Just a heads-up for those who haven't planned their travel yet; rtgwg is scheduled for the first Friday afternoon session. Remember that discussion on the list is very valuable (not just face-to-face time) and that IETF is increasingly full with many conflicts between working groups. Alia ___

Fwd: IETF 87 Final Agenda

Note that rtgwg is scheduled for: Friday Afternoon Session I and II * * We'll close the IETF meeting ;-) Alia -- Forwarded message -- From: IETF Agenda Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:20 PM Subject: IETF 87 Final Agenda To: IETF Announcement List Cc: i...@ietf.org 87th IETF Meet

IETF-87 agenda topics for rtgwg

I2RS is scheduled to meet on Friday, August 2 from 11:20-13:30. Please forward any I2RS agenda items you have to Alvaro and myself. The deadline is July 16 - but earlier is better.Our WG agenda is due on July 17. We do require an internet-draft (with planned-to-be very rare exceptions).

IETF-87 agenda topics for rtgwg

RTGWG is scheduled to meet on Friday, August 2 from 11:20-13:30. Please forward any RTGWG agenda items you have to Alvaro and myself. The deadline is July 16 - but earlier is better.Our WG agenda is due on July 17. We do require an internet-draft (with planned-to-be very rare exceptions).

Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03.txt

,Andras Csaszar ,Alia Atlas ,"cbowers@" ,Abishek Gopalan ,Chris Bowers ,Andras Csaszar ,Gabor Sandor Enyedi Subject: New Version Notification for draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03.txt A new version of I-D, draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm-03.txt has been successfully su

please read and comment on the MTU problems in draft-liu-rtgwg-mtu-config-ps

We are likely to add this draft to the list to be discussed in the meeting. It is discussing some general problems with MTU configuration between vendors. While it discusses this for ISIS, some aspects also apply to OSPF. Basically, there are three problems: a) Some implementations use L2 MTU a

Re: please read and comment on the MTU problems in draft-liu-rtgwg-mtu-config-ps

Yes - my thought is perhaps a BCP?? It's clearly an interoperability problem. What is interesting is to discuss the issue and see what could be done. Alia P.S. Thanks for the quick reading and response! On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Tony Li wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 8:

Re: please read and comment on the MTU problems in draft-liu-rtgwg-mtu-config-ps

ering what the expected output or goal is. Would > publishing an RFC achieve the goal stated in the I-D? > >for all vender to standardize the MTU configuration in IP >network and MPLS network. > > Or are existing RFCs + vendors' documentation + discussion lists archive

Re: please read and comment on the MTU problems in draft-liu-rtgwg-mtu-config-ps

SPF implementation if MTU on both sides doesn't match > >>OSPF will get stuck in Exchange/Exstart. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jeff > >> > >> On Jul 27, 2013, at 5:29 PM, "Curtis Villamizar" > >> wrote: > >>

looking for comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture

(WG-chair hat off) I would be quite interested in any comments, questions, and suggestions for draft-ietf-rtgwg-mrt-frr-architecture-03. In this revision, I believe that it has finalized all the open questions and is presenting a complete and implementable architecture. Two associated protocol d

status of draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement

As you may recall, we successfully completed a WGLC on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10. After that, there was concern about the use of ITU terminology (composite-link and NPO) where the draft was not actually using the exact meaning specified by the ITU. Therefore, it was decided to return the

scribe and jabber scribe needed

It's not too soon to volunteer to be a scribe or jabber scribe for RTGWG... We could really use volunteers, particularly, for scribe. I'd rather have this dealt with before Friday. Thanks, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org

Re: please read and comment on the MTU problems in draft-liu-rtgwg-mtu-config-ps

In message <88f3367d-a533-4790-81bd-4778a6805...@ericsson.com> > Jeff Tantsura writes: > > Curtis, > > In any known OSPF implementation if MTU on both sides doesn't match OSPF > will get stuck in Exchange/Exstart. > > Regards, > Jeff > > On Jul 27, 201

WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11

This is to start a second Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11. As you may recall, we successfully completed a WGLC on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10. After that, there was concern about the use of ITU terminology (composite-link and NPO) where the draft was not actual

Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: > This is to start a second Working Group Last Call on > draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11. As you may recall, we successfully > completed a WGLC on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-10. After that, > there was concern abo

Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-11

I did that on Sept 13. Alia On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > Alia, > > We should send a heads up to MPLS and CCAMP. Would you please do that as > WG chair. > > Curtis > > > Curtis Villamizar > Sent from my tablet so please disregard s

Re: Request for review - draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-01.txt

It would be excellent to see progress on the Remote LFA draft and on merging at least the two drafts that describe how to do node-protection for Remote LFA before the Vancouver IETF. Alia On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Hannes Gredler wrote: > hi jeff, > > the single biggest problem with draft

please comment on draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01

I would like to strongly encourage reading and commenting on draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-01. IMHO, it is a fairly simple extension that solves a real problem which appears for any alternates beyond LFA with a link/node down. I would like to see more detail on how this applies to node failur

Re: WG Adoption of MRT Algorithms Draft (draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm)

(WG-chair hat off) I agree. I haven't seen any work on the ARC drafts in the last year. I don't see the work needed to take an algorithm into the functioning MRT architecture. Remember that it's taken a good amount of time to flesh out all the details for MRT. Alia On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:

Re: WG Adoption of MRT Algorithms Draft (draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm)

Hi Alvaro, Some responses in-line. Thanks for taking the time to give a good review. Alia On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 9/27/13 8:53 AM, "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" wrote: > > We want to hear from people who have read and understood the draft > (besides

Re: WG Adoption of MRT Algorithms Draft (draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm)

Replies in-line as always... On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 10/9/13 5:06 PM, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > > > > Alia: > > Hi! > > I pruned most of the text off to leave the relevant parts. > > Thanks!! > &g

Re: WG Adoption of MRT Algorithms Draft (draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm)

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > > > Hi! > > On 10/10/13 5:07 PM, "Alia Atlas" wrote: > > . . . > > >>>1. >>> - Root Selection. No algorithm is provided. There's a reference >>

Fwd: NOMCOM - Critical shortage of nominees for multiple areas

-- Forwarded message -- From: "NomCom Chair 2013" Date: Oct 17, 2013 10:25 AM Subject: NOMCOM - Critical shortage of nominees for multiple areas To: "IETF Announcement List" Cc: "IETF Discuss" [Catchier Subject line - apologies to those offended by a duplicate] A critically low

Re: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00

Please also look at RFC 5710 and Sec 6.1 with the Incremental Cost Adjustment. It would be helpful to understand where your draft has changes and improvements. Alia On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Acee Lindem wrote: > Can you contrast this with RFC 6976? You include RFC 6976 in the Normative

Re: IRP Claims related to draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm

Sorry! I don't believe that I know of any IPR claims by Juniper on draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-algorithm-04, but I can't speak for Gabor or Andras as far as their IPR goes. Alia Original message From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" Date: 10/22/2013 1:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: draft-enye

Re: IRP Claims related to draft-enyedi-rtgwg-mrt-frr-algorithm

[WG Chair Hat off] Hi Alvaro, To my knowledge, there are various IPR claims on the architecture draft. Obviously, people must read the various IPR claims andi make their own decisions. a) On using the MRT algorithm for fast-reroute with trying MRT-BLUE and going to MRT-RED if that fails. (Init

Re: Soliciting WG feedback and comments on draft-zxd-rtgwg-ordered-metric-adjustment-00

Pierre, Thanks for the updates. Can you summarize? Have the number of changes become few enough in general to be practical? Alia On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Pierre Francois wrote: > Stephane, > > Much progress on the topic has been made since that much preliminary > Infocom paper. >

Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa

I've given this draft a thorough reading (except for commenting on the cost-based algorithm that Pushpasis already gave feedback on). I have two major concerns. First, I see no discussion at all about how multipoint interfaces are handled. Nothing indicates that they are out of scope for protect

Agenda requests for IETF 89

It is not too early to start thinking about IETF 89. Alvaro and I would really like to get agenda requests early. We expect that drafts will have discussion on this mailing list before hand. The following are items that we believe will request agenda slots. PLEASE CONFIRM and tell us how much t

process questions about draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-03

Is the intended status still Informational? Are there any implementations? Thanks, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

rtgwg scheduled Mon 13:00-15:00 (prelim agenda)

Just a quick heads up that rtgwg will be Mon afternoon. Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection

support - it's good to have a draft describing the options around rLFA node-protection. Alia On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > During the meeting in London the authors asked for the WG to adopt this > draft. > > This message officially starts the call

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay

Support On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > Hi! > > During the meeting in London the authors asked for the WG to adopt this > draft. > > This message officially starts the call for adoption > for draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay. Please indicate your position a

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection

Stephane, A solution that requires or desires different heuristics depending upon the network topology is complex and somewhat fragile. I also feel that we are in the realm of attempted partial solutions, each more complex than the previous one. SPRING has the hope of making the rLFA approach si

Re: WG Adoption Call for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection

piece adding more complexity. Engineering is about trade-offs and that can be different for each network and person. Regards, Alia On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 4:25 AM, wrote: > Hi Alia, > > > > Pls find comments inline. > > > > *De :* Alia Atlas [mailto:akat...@gmail.

RE: a MRT algorithm

Thanks for the pointer. Alia -Original Message- From: Yasuhiro Ohara [mailto:y...@nttv6.jp] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:33 PM To: egbo...@ericsson.com; Alia Atlas; eand...@ericsson.com Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org Subject: a MRT algorithm Hi, Regarding Maximally Redundant Trees algorithms

RE: WG review for draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc

GROW & IDR both agreed that it wasn't in their charter. This falls under rtgwg having individual drafts without a good WG. I have agreed to AD-sponsor it, but would prefer that it get the focus and review and consensus from being in a WG. There are 2 drafts (this & abno) that we are trying this

Re: WG review for draft-lapukhov-bgp-routing-large-dc

Hi Tony, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Antoni Przygienda < antoni.przygie...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > hi antoni, > > > > i am all for accepting it as a WG item - IMO its an excellent proofpoint > that > > really large datacenters can be run based on exisiting protocols and > > [Tony said] Ha

Just interesting FYI - liaison from IEEE referring to MRT work

For those interested in seeing some additional uses of MRT, there's a liaison from IEEE to the PCE and ISIS WG below that includes a contribution using it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1345/ Regards, Alia ___ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg@ietf.org ht

Re: rtgwg Rechartering

Hi Dmitri, On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri) < dimitri.papadimitr...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > As we are discussing it; it would be of interest to see if this working > group should not consider as part of its charter “extensions” for protocols > fo

Re: rtgwg Rechartering

Hi Bruno, On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote: > On 9/23/14 4:27 AM, "bruno.decra...@orange.com" < > bruno.decra...@orange.com> wrote: > >- What’s the remaining use of the Routing Area plenary meeting? A top > down summary of latest WG status? > > > I'll let the

Re: Adrian Farrel's Yes on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT)

Adrian, Adding an explicit inclusion for routing-related YANG models not in other working groups sounds good to me. Thanks for the catch and having a helpful extra pointer/encouragement. How does adding it as an explicit larger work item such as: "The specific larger topics that RTGWG is curren

Re: Adrian Farrel's Yes on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT)

> From: Alia Atlas > Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 12:08 AM > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: "rtgwg@ietf.org" , "rtgwg-cha...@tools.ietf.org" < > rtgwg-cha...@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG , Routing ADs < > rtg-...@tools.ietf.org> > Subje

Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut th

Re: Adrian Farrel's Yes on charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: (with COMMENT)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: > On 30/09/2014 21:20, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: Yes >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses includ

  1   2   >