When adding text on this to the document, please make sure the difference
between using ECMP for load-balancing BF and using ECMP and LFAs for
protection AF is emphasized.
Another question we may want to think about is load-balancing AF via multiple
Monday, February 14, 2005, 12:21:37 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> At 12:15 PM 2/14/2005, mike shand wrote:
>>>So describe the above example as a case of how ECMP doesn't guarantee
>>>protection - and then up to the implementation/operator to decide what
>>>the preference between protection type and cost is?
>>Don't we already have to discuss the same sort of issues with respect to
>>LFAs? ie. you may be able to get a viable LFA where you couldn't otherwise
>>by relaxing the protection type.
> We do. The draft describes the selection of an alternate for each primary
> next-hop, so it's really part of that... I can just add in an advisory bit
> with the example.
>>But if it were a choice between using an ECMP which may not actually
>>protect against the failure, and using an LFA which is guaranteed to
>>protect against any failure, then I think I would probably choose the
>>latter. It is only in cases where there was no "perfect" LFA that I might
>>be tempted to use a less than unconditionally OK ECMP (or even LFA).
> Right. The draft says one should pick an alternate that gives the best
> protection possible.
>>But as you say, to some extent it is an operator/implementation choice.
> So I'll clarify a bit with the example - and leave it as the should.
> Rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
Rtgwg mailing list