One thing to note is that the problem can't occur if D_opt(N, D) < D_opt(E,
D). I.e., if the alternate next-hop is a downstream path with regard to
the primary next-hop. Not that this helps with coverage :-(
Similarly, if no other ABR in the area is announcing a shorter path than
D_opt(E,D), then it couldn't happen. Or even if the combo of the distance
from the other ABR to E plus the path announced is shorter than
D_opt(E,D). If S is an ABR, then S could hear all the other ABR's summary
routes and be able to determine this, I think. Not that it's pretty...
At 08:25 PM 2/9/2005, Alex Zinin wrote:
>>In this scenario, assuming the failure is that of P1 node, Y would lose its
>>connectivity in area 1 completely, wouldn't it?
> True. One could easily add a link between Y and another node in area 1 so
> that doesn't happen. There could be a link between S and Y of greater
> - so that Y tries to use S as a loop-free link-protecting alternate.
I thought about this today. It seems that in the above situation, for a
form, S doesn't even have to be a direct neighbor of Y, just belong to the
rooted at Y's LFA. In fact, it also appears that S doesn't even have to do
I need to think more about this, but it seems that the LFA condition for ABRs
cannot be simply based on a single area topology. I'll provide more
I'm done going through different scenarios.
Of course, the last resort is to say that transit areas are not supported yet,
but I want to make sure we understand how hard it would be to get them to work
Rtgwg mailing list