Remote lfa frrdraft ietf rtgwg remote lfa 03
1 / 9

Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03. [email protected] Where is 03. Hopefully on the IETF website otherwise at /s/yvzvvra3ie8ojv0/candidate2%20-draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03.txt. Since -02. Clarified definition of PQ and remote LFA

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Remote LFA FRRdraft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-03' - zia

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Where is 03
Where is 03

  • Hopefully on the IETF website otherwise at

Since 02
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

Node repair
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.

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.

Cost based algorithm
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.

Lfa vs always rlfa
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?

Tldp address
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?

Are we ready
Are we ready?

  • Any other issues?

  • Is the text ready to ship?