[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-00.txt]

Subject: draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-00.txt]
From: Srinivas Akkipeddi
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:23:10 -0400
Alex,

In the draft under the IP-FRR section it is mentioned that the
affected router where the failure has occured need not hold down the
route (install it without any delay) if it does not have any alternate
and the new primary next-hops do not satisfy the safety condition, and
there's no other neighbor that does, i.e. a type-C situation.

I would suggest that this should hold good irrespective of whether a
router supports IP-FRR or not.  That is not having an alternate is the
same as not supporting IP-FRR.

Also there should be a discussion about whether the affected router in
the above scenario should discard the traffic (which would be the case
if it does not install the route since it is Type-c) or to go ahead
and perhaps cause a microloop (by installing the route without any
additional delay).

I would suggest to NOT special case the affected router and in the
above scenario, since it is type-C situation, install the route after
delay_typeC.

Thanks
Srinivas Akkipeddi

Avici Systems.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis-00.txt], Srinivas Akkipeddi <=