tewart.bry...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 12:48 PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu;
rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
Your answer did not address
:)
Ahmed
*From:*Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, August 07, 2017 12:48 PM
*To:* Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu;
rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment
); Stewart Bryant; Sikhivahan Gundu; rtgwg@ietf.org
Cc: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
Your answer did not address the issue below, which is one of a class of issues
related to SRLG.
- Stewart
On 07/08/2017 19:23
Your answer did not address the issue below, which is one of a class of
issues related to SRLG.
- Stewart
On 07/08/2017 19:23, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote:
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:
5 August 2017 01:19
*To:* Sikhivahan Gundu <sikhivahan.gu...@ericsson.com>; rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
<stew...@g3ysx.org.uk>
*Subject:* Re: I-D Action:
draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
HI,
All members of the same SRLG
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,
t expectation for SRLG?
Thanks,
Sikhi
*From:*Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) [mailto:basha...@cisco.com]
*Sent:* 05 August 2017 01:19
*To:* Sikhivahan Gundu <sikhivahan.gu...@ericsson.com>; rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
<stew...@g3ysx.org.uk>
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, is based on actual topology. This
seems needs reconciling since in TI-LFA the
m]
Sent: 05 August 2017 01:19
To: Sikhivahan Gundu <sikhivahan.gu...@ericsson.com>; rtgwg@ietf.org
Cc: rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant
<stew...@g3ysx.org.uk>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
HI,
All members of the same
