[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Updated: draft-zinin-microloop-analysis-01.txt

Subject: Re: Updated: draft-zinin-microloop-analysis-01.txt
From: Alex Zinin
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:38:52 -0700
Alia,

>> >     For situation 2 (an A/B or an A/C combination), the implementation:
>>
>> >       1)   SHALL update the route with the new next-hops that satisfy the
>> >            safety condition without an additional delay
>>
>> >       2)   SHALL add the remaining new next-hops after DELAY_TYPEB.
>>
>>SB>> maybe clarify type B is NOT used, although, there seems to
>>SB>> be no protocol reason why use type B cannot be used.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

> Safe but not new primary neighbors (type B) could be used during the 
> transition period.

That's what the text says, right?

> This is expressing a policy that they will not be; it
> would be safe to use them.

Sorry, still not clear enough to me--are you guys suggesting the text is
changed, if so how?

>>Alia, Stewart, I don't think the text disallows future repair techniques,
>>but let me know, guys, how you think the text could be improved.

> How about just changing where you have "procedures describes in this 
> document ...."  to "a controlled convergence mechanism such as that 
> described in the procedures in this document"?

OK, I see what you mean. How about this?

     If a router implementing this specification also implements [IPFRR]
     and performs a local failure repair, the following considerations
     apply.

Alex


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

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