RE: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

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 draft is very clear from the draft itself as well as the numerous responses during the previous IETF and the mailing list. The issue below is

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, 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:

Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

On 07/08/2017 19:23, Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy) wrote: I am not aware of such thing as "speculative, ambiguous, probabilistic, stocastic,..., etc" SRLG. SRLG is one member fails, all members fail. I presumed that this is understood from the many responses and discussions that we had.

Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

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,

Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

I am not aware of such thing as "speculative, ambiguous, probabilistic, stocastic,..., etc" SRLG. SRLG is one member fails, all members fail. I presumed that this is understood from the many responses and discussions that we had. However I will explicitly define the term "SRLG" in the draft

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 05:55:01PM +, Chris Bowers wrote: > With the proposed generalization of rule #3, together with a clarification > that the source-prefix-scoped > forwarding table should be chosen based on longest source prefix match with > the source address of the packet, > I think

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 11:12:02AM +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote: > Hi David, > > > It's already there > > I was speaking about rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming. ;-) Oh, sorry, I jumped over because the section numbers were so similar ;-D -David > Thanks by the way for your explanations in

Re: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

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

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

Hi David, > It's already there I was speaking about rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming. ;-) Thanks by the way for your explanations in your two previous mails. I think this really helps us understand each other. Cheers, Matthieu ___ rtgwg mailing list

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:42:59PM +0200, Matthieu Boutier wrote: [snip] > Perhaps having something like the following(?): > > 3. Forwarding tables representations > 3.1. Source Address Dependant Forwarding tables > -> this is just a dump of the announces > 3.2.

Re: Persistent loops when mixing rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming and rtgwg-dst-src-routing

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:23:46PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2017, at 2:06 AM, Matthieu Boutier wrote: > > > > Did you agree that: > > > > 1. destination first give the correct behaviour as-is. > > > > 2. source first needs extra mechanism and route