[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-atlas-ip-local-protect-uturn-01.txt

Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-atlas-ip-local-protect-uturn-01.txt
From: Pekka Savola
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:00:07 +0300 EEST
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Alia Atlas wrote:
My impression from the networks that I have analyzed is that most are very close to 100% (average 98%) for coverage with u-turn and loop-free alternates. For a few, I have explored the changes necessary to bring the coverage to 100%; it has been a relatively minor modification. For instance, the modification may be a link that was already planned, a slight modification to a metric, or the like.
Clearly, this is topology dependent, but I think that a topology need not be
substantially more dense than they are today.
The purpose of u-turn alternates is to bring the coverage and network
engineering into that area.
I am more than happy to analyze any topologies and report back the results.
These don't even have to be real topologies :-)
Have such topologies been formally described? Or, with (sufficient
number of) examples of topologies which are not supported, and the
changes required to make them so?
It would be useful for the operators to be able to figure out how
their topology would act like?
If we don't get 100% coverage, this exercise needs to be done sooner
or later, and (IMHO) written in an RFC.
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>