A couple of questions for the group. So far the work accepted by the
group mainly been focused around routers immediately adjacent to a
failure or neighbors of routers adjacent to a failure. This work
extends the ordering to all routers in an area.
The law of diminishing returns is that most of the benefit is for the
neighboring routers and the extra effort is for a small amount of
traffic. So I think we need to make sure that operators feel this type
of extension is important. I believe you need to know that all routers
within the area have the capability to ensure orderly operation.
If one router in the area does not support the feature what is the
Also if an unplanned event occurs during ordering would you immediately
shut of the fib ordering?
This draft would replace the micro loop analysis and Path locking via
safe neighbors draft? While it is not perfect it also reduces the effect
of changes (planned or unplanned) when used in conjunction with loop
> Would you agree if section 2 of the draft was updated and
> link down events were removed and only the following events
> were supported :
> - metric change
> - link up
> - router down and router up (overload bit transition in ISIS)
> This would mean that if a router wants to either supports
> graceful manual link shutdown or graceful shutdown of fully
> protected link, it should first advertise the considered link
> with a very large metric and later remove it from its link
> state packet.
Rtgwg mailing list