At 21:09 14/06/2005, Bill Fenner wrote:
There's certainly been discussion on the technical content, but
let's look for consensus on the meta-issue: should this document
be a rtgwg work item? Let's make this a 1 week WG call for comments;
both for and against (well, we don't *need* any against, but if they're
there I want to hear them!). I'll evaluate WG consensus on June 22.
Yes, I think it should be WG document. It plays nicely with the "Basic"
IPFFR solution. However, I would not like this to prevent us working on
methods which give complete prevention of loops for use with IPFRR
mechanisms which give complete repair.
On the complexity front, I think we can probably omit the type B
destinations (treating them as type Cs). This will give slightly worse
performance (but my simulations indicate this is quite a small change), but
will allow the convergence to be complete after 1 rather than 2 delay
cycles, and will avoid the need to change a FIB entry for a destination
twice. This is probably a tradeoff worth making (since neither gives
Rtgwg mailing list