At 05:38 PM 6/3/2005, Alex Zinin wrote:
>> > For situation 2 (an A/B or an A/C combination), the implementation:
>> > 1) SHALL update the route with the new next-hops that
>> > 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?
Well, it's a bit unclear. It says "with the new next-hops", so that
implies, to me at least, that those are safe new primary next-hops.
Also, the fact that in step 2 the remaining new next-hops are added and the
type B next-hops aren't removed indicates that the type B next-hops aren't
> 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?
Do you want the policy of using type B or not? If not using them, then the
text is ok - but needs a clarifying statement that this means that the type
B next-hops are not used due to policy.
>>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
Sounds good to me.
Rtgwg mailing list