[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question regarding draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-05

Subject: Re: Question regarding draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-05
From: "Alia Atlas"
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:54:37 -0800
Yes, you're right.  I was rereading quickly.  The question is more between
the type of alternate (LFA, not-via, etc) and the distance.

Alia

On 2/24/07, Schnitter, Stefan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,

>>Having the shortest path towards the destination - also in an ipfrr
>>situation - can be beneficial (within the simulation I found numerous
>>case where long detours occur when the distance would not be
considered)
>>but also the distance is a tie-breaker that is easy to evaluate.
>>Otherwise simulations of ipfrr might more difficult (in case of DT's
>>backbone the distance would almost always be sufficient to choose a
>>unique LFA)
>>
>>So - wouldn't it be good to add an "If-condition" between 14. and 15.
>>that explicitly chooses the candidate with minimum distance (and not
>>leave this to the vendors decision)?
>
>Would you prefer a shorter path over one that provides node protection?
>That's one of the details hidden in the "depending on alternate type".

Probably not - I'd prefer the node protection. But my understanding of
the
procedure was that this is decided already in step 11:

"11.  If cand_node-protect is TRUE and P_i.alt_node-protect is FALSE,
      goto Paragraph 18. "

(i.e. if I can improve the protection type I prefer the candidate in any
case - and step 15 is not relevant)
My point was only to ensure that the distance is used as the first
tie-breaker
for candidates with equal protection type.

Stefan.

_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>