[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation

Subject: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation
From: Kui Zhang
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:14:35 +0800

Hi all,

I have a doubt about multi-homed prefix LFA computation described in draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-10:

“If the alternate next-hop for the

   prefix p is simply inherited from the router advertising it on the

   shortest path to p, then the prefix p's alternate next-hop would be

   the link to C. This would provide link protection, but not the node

   protection that is possible via A.

                      5   +---+  4   +---+  5  +---+

                    ------| S |------| A |-----| B |

                    |     +---+      +---+     +---+

                    |       |                    |

                    |     5 |                  5 |

                    |       |                    |

                  +---+ 5 +---+   5       7    +---+

                  | C |---| E |------ p -------| F |

                  +---+   +---+                +---+

 

                       Figure 6: Multi-homed prefix

 

It seems router A is not a valid node-protecting LFA, which will cause a forwarding loop.

And the following words seem incorrect since we have to take the cost from the advertising router to the advertised prefixes into consideration.

   “If there exist multiple multi-homed prefixes that share the same

   connectivity and the difference in metrics to those routers, then a

   single node can be used to represent the set.”

 

For example, in figure 6, if the cost for prefix p to F decreases to 4, then router A will be a valid node-protecting LFA.

 

Do I miss something here? Thanks for helping me in advance.

 

Regards,

Zhangkui

 

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