|Subject:||Re: Comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09|
|Date:||Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:41:01 -0400|
On 10/12/07, mike shand <[email protected]> wrote:
I support the progression of this document, but would like to see the
I addressed the comments on the algorithm in a separate email. Here are
responses to your points below.
In addition, I wonder whether there should be something up front which
Agreed. I've added this.
yes - changed
Figure 5: Example where Continued Use of Alternate is Desirable
Immediately before that figure, the draft discusses how the techniques given
in the micro-loop prevention drafts should dictate the convergence rules.
I've prefaced the references to those drafts with
"There are techniques available to handle the micro-forwarding loops
that can occur in a networking during convergence."
to give it a bit more context.
based on the new network topology. The use of the alternate next-
Once the failure has been advertised, I don't think we can just go back to using
the old next hop. It would depend on what else in the network has already been
updated. Can you explain why you don't think that additional micro-loops might be
Also, generally, there are hold-down times on links so that they can't just bounce
back up before the link change has been advertised. I don't think this is a very useful
optimization and I'm a bit concerned about putting it in now without some more thought.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Comments on Algorithm description in draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09, Alia Atlas|
|Next by Date:||Re: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09 - LC coments, Alia Atlas|
|Previous by Thread:||Comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09, mike shand|
|Next by Thread:||Comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09, Rüdiger A Martin|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|