In message <[email protected]>
Bill Fenner writes:
> >I will ask Bill to check WG consensus on taking this doc as a WG item.
> >Please read and send your comments to the list.
> 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.
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.
My initial thought was that Alex's internet draft covered a topic that
needed to be covered. As the safety conditions were "fine tuned", the
draft has become a bit more complicated in that you now have to
determine if the router is Type A, B, or C with respect to a given
prefix. A prerequisite to accepting this draft should be documenting
the existance of an efficient algorithm that makes this determination
for the entire set of prefixes. The algorithm must also be
unencumbered by intellectual property restrictions.
In the mean time, can we let the technical discussion settle down and
have someone summarize what the microloop loop threat remains when the
mechanism Alex is proposing is used? I'm not sure what changes if any
have come out of the discussion since the volume of messages has
obscured any conclusion of the discussion for me anyway.
Rtgwg mailing list