Could you outline the changes to the proposal since we discussed it in
detail last year?
I believe that the same objections were raised to it in Paris as came
out of the design team discussion. Certainly, I believe that I voiced
the same concerns. These related to the much larger convergence time,
the amount of additional signaling and the clear handling of SRLGs &
nodes. In addition, a clear algorithm for the computation would be
I can certainly see some uses for the maintenance (link up or metric
change) related events. The signaling part could use more details and
discussion of the dynamics.
On 11/21/05, Olivier Bonaventure <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear All,
> We would like to propose to consider draft-francois-ordered-fib-00.txt
> as a working group document. This draft was presented in Paris and no
> objections were raised. It proposes techniques to order the FIB updates
> in an IP network using a link state routing protocol to avoid transient
> forwarding loops. We believe that this draft is important for the fast
> reroute work done within this WG, but also as a standalone document.
> Measurements performed in IP networks show that planned topology changes
> are very common. For example,  reports that in the Sprint network,
> 20% of the topology changes are due to maintenance operations. We
> discussed this issue with several ISPs that confirmed that correctly
> handling the non-urgent topology changes was an important problem to be
> You can find the current version of the draft on the IETF web site
>  Athina Markopoulou and Gianluca Iannaccone and Supratik
> Bhattacharyya and Chen-Nee Chuah and Christophe Diot (2004).
> Characterization of Failures in an IP Backbone.
> In: IEEE Infocom. Hong Kong. March 2004.
> Best regards,
> Olivier Bonaventure
> CSE Dept. UCL, Belgium - http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/OBO/
> Rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
Rtgwg mailing list