[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

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

Subject: Re: node disjoint and SRLG was: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt
From: Alia Atlas
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:57:56 -0500
At 03:17 AM 11/24/2004, mike shand wrote:
But this does raise an interesting question. So far we (well at least I) have been thinking of SRLG in terms of a set of links failing. But we know already that we need to consider node failure as an SRLG consisting of all the links from a neighboring node, so if we see the link to our neighbor go down we must assume that the node itself has gone down. So does this mean that if we have a neighbor E, and SE is an SRLG with links XY and ST, the ACTUAL SRLG we have to consider is node E failure and links ST and XY failure?
I think that the ideal is to have an alternate that provides link, node and
SRLG protection. Each protection set is a different check. If such an
alternate doesn't exist, then it's just a question of prioritization. We
have the same problem between link and node protection.

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

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