1 / 9

Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03

Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03. stbryant@cisco.com. Where is 03. Hopefully on the IETF website otherwise at https://www.dropbox.com /s/yvzvvra3ie8ojv0/candidate2%20-draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03.txt. Since -02. Clarified definition of PQ and remote LFA

zia
Download Presentation

Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03 stbryant@cisco.com

  2. Where is 03 • Hopefully on the IETF website otherwise at https://www.dropbox.com/s/yvzvvra3ie8ojv0/candidate2%20-draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03.txt

  3. Since -02 • Clarified definition of PQ and remote LFA • Added cost definition to topological definition of P and Q spaces • Added cost based RLFA calculation • Corrected error in label stacks (section 7) • Replaced coverage information with results of more modern study • Added management considerations

  4. Node Repair? • Should we merge with node repair • (As an author) my view is no. We should ship the draft which (mea culpa) is overdue.

  5. (extended)P-space • P-space and/or extended P-space • P-space is useful in understanding the concept • Extended P-space is what you would normally calculate • P nodes and extended P nodes may have different forwarding considerations so you may need to know which is which • The cost algorithm just calculated extended P-space, the text talks about both.

  6. Cost Based Algorithm • There is a stylistic difference of opinion between the editor and one reviewer. • I think that this is just style rather than protcol correctness and prefer to be careful with the number of columns needed.

  7. LFA vs always RLFA • The text (from way back) proposes RLFA as an extension to LFA. • One reviewer proposes always using RLFA for manageability reasons. • There is no routing correctness issue since both are correct in their own right and a router can arbitrarily use either or both from a reachability perspective. • Question – do we leave the text as it is in version 3, or do we purge LFA other than and a pre-cursor and method of understanding RFLA?

  8. TLDP Address • We all agree we need a protocol to do this properly, and there seems to be consensus that this need to be specified in the IGP group. • A protocol is the only automatic method that has guaranteed correctness. • What else? • Management configuration – this seems like a fundamental requirement • Pick an address – current text says the lowest local address. • Is this necessary? • Is this sufficient? • Any other method?

  9. Are we ready? • Any other issues? • Is the text ready to ship?

More Related