[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SRLG protection, LFAs and areas

Subject: Re: SRLG protection, LFAs and areas
From: Alex Zinin
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:53:55 -0700

  Catching up...
  I think putting something like this in the text would be useful.
  The only thing I would suggest is change "OSPF area or ISIS level"
  to "OSPF or IS-IS area".


Monday, May 2, 2005, 7:54:04 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> In considering the applicability statement for LFAs in regards to OSPF, it
> seems to me that a bit more detail/accuracy in describing SRLG protection
> is desirable.  Essentially, an alternate can only guarantee SRLG-protection
> for the area within which it is computed.  If an SRLG contains links from
> multiple areas, it is possible for traffic to leave one area (via the LFA)
> and then be forwarded across a path that includes the SRLG in the next 
> area.  Of course, if the SRLG had actually failed, then the path in the 
> next area would (hopefully) fail-over to the local alternate there.

> I'm thinking of the following wording:  "Where SRLG protection is provided,
> it is in the context of the particular OSPF area or ISIS level, whose 
> topology is used the SPF computations to compute the loop-free 
> alternates.  If an SRLG contains links in multiple areas, then separate 
> SRLG-protecting alternates
> would be required in each area that is traversed by the affected
> traffic."

> Thoughts?  Is this useful or clear enough?

> Thanks,
> Alia

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

Rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: SRLG protection, LFAs and areas, Alex Zinin <=