[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: node disjoint and SRLG (was: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnel

Subject: Re: node disjoint and SRLG was: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt
From: Alia Atlas
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:48:08 -0500
At 06:23 AM 11/26/2004, Stewart Bryant wrote:
What we have not discussed, but which applies in this case, is applying LF to a subset of the prefixes.
The importance of the micro-loop prevention depends on the duration of the
possible micro-loops.
What Mike and I have always been alarmed at is the thought that in
protecting some subset of the prefixes, we damage - perhaps quite badly- the service to other prefixes unless we have 100% coverage.
The micro-loop prevention can't make the service to other prefixes
substantially worse.
Now what we could perhaps to is to run LF on just the prefixes that
we can protect. So if we knew that we had 100% protection on say
VPN and PWs. We could run controlled convergence on the adresses
of those endpoint address and run uncontrolled on the rest.
Right, but how do we communicate the prefixes that are protected (or
unprotected) in a reasonable fashion?
Alia


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

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