[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation

Subject: Re: Question regarding multi-homed prefix LFA computation
From: "Alia Atlas"
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:04:12 -0500
You mean, except for the case where the node-protecting LFA isn't link-protecting because it goes through the same pseudo-node, it will be link-protecting?  Yes - but that's not a very meaningful statement.

For point-to-point interfaces, an LFA that is node-protecting is always link-protecting.

Alia

2008/2/15 Kui Zhang <[email protected]>:

 

The remaining problem is the relation between node protecting and link protecting inequality. Please read the following words:

 

As for node-protecting alternatives, I read the following description in section 3.3.  Broadcast and NBMA Links:

"Because the shortest path from the pseudo-node goes through E, if a

   loop-free alternate from a neighbor N is node-protecting, the

   alternate will also be link-protecting unless the router S can only

   reach the alternate neighbor N via the same pseudo-node."

 

This means only the SRLG of broadcast and NBMA links make the node-protecting LFA failed to provide link protection. Except for this, node-protecting alternate should always be link protecting. Is that right?

 

zhangkui

 


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