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
> Thoughts? Is this useful or clear enough?
> Rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
Rtgwg mailing list