[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ops reqs on IP FRR

Subject: Re: ops reqs on IP FRR
From: Alia Atlas
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:30:17 -0800
Mike,

On 11/14/05, mike shand <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 03:52 12/11/2005, Alia Atlas wrote:
> >  Second,
> >that by default, DELAY_TYPEC should be 0 - and then then knowledgable
> >operator could adjust it.  This would impact the effectiveness, but
> >give the original behavior (modulo the small % extra delay to collect
> >advertisements).
> >
>          Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are proposing here, but
> doesn't that just reduce to no loop prevention?

No,  I don't think so.  DELAY_TYPEB is still non-zero.  It means type
A and type C change to their new next-hops immediately.  Type As (of
course) and type B are still protected.  What wouldn't be protected
would be the type C to anything loops.  That would definitely reduce
the coverage of PLSN, which is quite unfortunate & not the normal
recommendation.  On the other hand, it's the only way I see of
ensuring that the use doesn't cause additional traffic losage when S
doesn't have an alternate.

If you have the time, could you take a look at your simulation results
& see what this does to the coverage?  (% of potential micro-loops)

Alia

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>