[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Motivation of IPFRR

Subject: Motivation of IPFRR
From: András Császár
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:41:00 +0200
Hi All!

I really like the idea of having an FRR solution for native IP networks and so 
I have been following the evolution of IPFRR solutions for quite some time now 
(LFA, not-via, MRC, FIR & co.), and I think I know quite well what are the 
different proposals about.

Yet, the other day I was asked a question, for which I couldn't and still can't 
give a profound answer. The question was something like this:

Why do we need a separate IP-FRR solution, why is it not enough to use an MPLS 
detour to a (next-)next-hop to protect links?

The motivation behind it was that basically all major router vendors (C*, J*, 
R*) support it, why do we need a dedicated native IP solution?

Up to know I thought that there is MPLS-FRR for MPLS networks, there is IP-FRR 
for IP networks. But now I think that node/link protection of MPLS-FRR is 
straightforward to apply to IP networks as well. I mean, you don't have to 
bother about managing a full fledged MPLS network, although there will be some 
protection LSPs for FRR purposes but these are quite automatic.

Are there scenarios out there which require the extreme high resilience 
provided by FRR but which do not afford having even a little MPLS only for 
protection? Under normal conditions, the network is basically still a pure IP 

I went through the intro of all major IPFRR publications out there, but each 
motivated IPFRR with the need of an IP-only solution, but what is the 
motivation for having a native IP-only solution?

Do I miss something, or is the answer only something like management-overhead 
of MPLS?

Any answers would very appreciated!

rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>