|Subject:||Re: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation|
|Date:||Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:08:03 -0500|
It does look like the costs are not correct to have A provide a node-protecting alternate. As Mike suggests, I'll change the cost of SA to be 8 instead of 4.
As to the multiple-prefix with the same difference, that is correct. Certainly the costs between the advertising routers and the prefixes need to be considered, but they can be grouped intelligently for computation. Let me see if I can explain better - perhaps we can but some better text in there.
Say there is another prefix p2 that is also attached to E, with a cost of 3, and to F with a cost of 5. Then one could just look at the difference between the costs for the attachments for the computation.
Compare cost(S to E) + 0 versus cost(S to F) + 2
Now, one can add 3 to both parts without changing which is larger - and that will give the final cost to p2.
Similarly, one can add 5 to both parts without changing which is larger - and that will give the final cost to p.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:17 AM, mike shand <[email protected]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation, mike shand|
|Next by Date:||I-D Action:draft-ietf-rtgwg-lf-conv-frmwk-02.txt, Internet-Drafts|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation, mike shand|
|Next by Thread:||RE: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation, Kui Zhang|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|