> >It seems to me that the whole IPFRR effort is way more complicated
> >than what it set out to replace, RSVP-TE FRR, when the justification
> >for doing IPFRR was to avoid complexity. Regardless, here we are.
> I have a certain sympathy with that position. However, remember that the
> microloop prevention came out of addressing a problem which was not
> addressed, and which remains a problem, with MPLS-TE when used with LDP.
> i.e. the loop prevention is applicable to that environment as well.
Did I miss this problem being brought to the MPLS working group?
Rtgwg mailing list