[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt

Subject: Re: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt
From: Naiming Shen
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:22:36 -0800
That's cool. I guess my concern was that not all the forwarding
architecture has the indirect adjacency forwarding capability
due to hardware or performance issues.

This is true.  The performance issues of older hardware from specific
vendors is out of scope for a discussion of the protocols although it
is a practical consideration for providers that have certain older
hardware.  I don't pretend to know which hardware can and can't do
this, but I do think its quite a lot of it.
You might be surprised on this, since it's not just with the legacy
hardware pieces, even the new ones, with increasing demand on services,
features, and marketing requirement for small packet in line rate,
this is one place performance can be boosted. Of course, this has
"nothing" to do with the protocol design ;-)

Cheers.
- Naiming

OTOH if the goal of the provider is to support VOIP and the gateways
that need the fast restoration are in the IGP it might be good enough
to support fast restoration of the IGP only and let BGP catch up at
its own slower pace.  Again this is a practical consideration for the
operator and out of scope for the protocol specs themselves.


_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

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