Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt draft-lu-ldp-igp-sync-bcast-00 by Wenhu Lu & Sriganesh Kini 75th IETF – Stockholm, Sweden (July 26-31,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt draft-lu-ldp-igp-sync-bcast-00 by Wenhu Lu & Sriganesh Kini 75th IETF – Stockholm, Sweden (July 26-31,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt draft-lu-ldp-igp-sync-bcast-00 by Wenhu Lu & Sriganesh Kini 75th IETF – Stockholm, Sweden (July 26-31, 2009)

2 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day2 () Draft Progress Presented on IETF74 San Francisco Received a few questions and concerns The received comments did not need any changes in the draft Post-meeting (ietf74) comments …following slides

3 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day3 () Convergence time Q: When there are many nodes on the broadcast network coming up does this increase the network convergence time? A: No. 2 scenarios: 1.The broadcast network as a 'cut-edge'. There is no change in convergence time as nothing special is done. Key: for cut-edge, no backup LSP is available, hence no need for sync. 2.The broadcast network as not a 'cut-edge', the network convergence time is no worse than RFC5443, since increasing the network metric produces the same effect.

4 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day4 () Topology to illustrate problem A B C E D PE1 PE3 PE2 A-PE3 link cost is 10 All other links have cost of 1

5 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day5 () Access Control List (ACL) Q: In case of non-cut-edge, and if the alternative route to the LDP peer (PE1-A-C-D-PE2) is blocked by ACL, this method will not work, whereas the RFC5443 method still will. A: The RFC5443 method will not work either. In fact, although the route PE1-A-B-PE2 is available, LDP traffic will still flow into PE1-A-C-D-PE2 because from each routers routing table, this path is still good and shorter.

6 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day6 () Leveraging pseudo-node Q: Another option may be for router B to advertise max metric to the pseudo node and in response for the pseudo node to advertise max metric to B. A1: You cant alter metric field of the pseudo node. In OSPF network- LSA is pseudo-node. Current packet format does not allow inserting a cost field. Similarly in ISIS the LSPID indicates that it is pseudo-node. ISO10589 mandates that the cost field in the pseudo-node LSP must be zero. A2: Another issue is the backward compatible. Also implementations today can ignore cost in the pseudo-node.

7 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day7 () Standard Track Acceptable as a wg draft ?

8 Top right corner for field-mark, customer or partner logotypes. See Best practice for example. Slide title 40 pt Slide subtitle 24 pt Text 24 pt Bullets level pt Ericsson Internal2009-Mo-Day8 ()


Download ppt "Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt draft-lu-ldp-igp-sync-bcast-00 by Wenhu Lu & Sriganesh Kini 75th IETF – Stockholm, Sweden (July 26-31,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google