|Subject:||Re: node disjoint and SRLG|
|Date:||Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:14:02 +0000|
mike shand wrote:
At 17:35 22/11/2004 -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:In message <[email protected]> Alia Atlas writes: > > Curtis, >> I think that Mike's numbers are for the percentage of node failures that> can't be repaired with a single primary tunnel+directed forwarding. > > I.e., it covers the node disjoint case pretty well. > > Alia What he's saying is that in the worst case he looked at 13.77% of the cases were not covered by single hop. With 2 hop there is 100% coverage but there is still some question about how computationally feasible the 2 hop algoritm is.
The use of the word hop may be confusing here. This is two stage rather than two hop, and there may be multiple hops per stage.
Stewart _______________________________________________ Rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: node disjoint and SRLG, Stewart Bryant|
|Next by Date:||Re: node disjoint and SRLG, Stewart Bryant|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: node disjoint and SRLG, Stewart Bryant|
|Next by Thread:||Re: node disjoint and SRLG (was: questions on draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-01.txt), mike shand|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|