[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

IPFRR: Link protection for Bcast/NBMA links

Subject: IPFRR: Link protection for Bcast/NBMA links
From: Alex Zinin
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:43:43 -0800
In section 2.3, the spec currently says that "For an alternate to be considered
link-protecting, it must be loop-free with regard to the pseudo-node." I'd like
to discuss this a bit.

LAN segments today are implemented using some sort of active equipment, most
often L2 switches. Hence, we have two types of failure cases, associates with
LANs: a) failure of a link between a router and the switch, and b) failure of
the switch. The current text essentially suggests to always be pessimistic and
assume that a link failure disables the whole segment.

Alia, could you comment on why you think we should be more pessimistic here
and always shoot for PNode-protecting in this case, rather than distinguish
between link protection and, say, segment protection?

Thanks.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin


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

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