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?
Rtgwg mailing list