The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Last Call on LDP Fault Tolerance
In message <4F9E13BCC53ED411A629009027E8D00C043336E0@msg001.dcat.ops.broadbando ffice.net>, afarrel@movaz.com writes: > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand > this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDDC.B0C2B8E0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > I find... > > > > There appears to be a school of thought where it is > > > > deemed beneficial to keep forwarding state intact > > > > in only very limited cases such as midnight > > > > controlled reload of routers for purposes such > > > > as software upgrade. > > > ...odd. When a line card fails I should like to be > > > able to swap to a new card and continue forwarding > > > data with only a very short (10s of ms) break. > > > > When a line card fails, that line card will still be in the box for at > > least a few minutes, more likely the better part of an hour, maybe > > longer. I don't know of any technician that can swap a line card in > > 10 msec. I also don't know of any line card that can reboot in 10 > > msec. When a line card fails if there is a TE tunnel and > > local-protect on the TE tunnel, then the switch over is very fast. If > > it is LDP without TE or TE without local protect, the 10s of msec is > > very likely not acheived. That has absolutely nothing to do with > > LDP-FT so I don't see why you brought it up. > > It has everything to do with LDP FT. > One of the key aims is to be able to switch "seamlessly" to another card > _that_is_already_in_the_box. > If the failed card was running LDP you must preserve protocol states etc. > If the failed card was a line card not running LDP, you must handle the > failed TCP connection (i.e. LDP session) and re-instate it through the > replacement card. I see your point. This is similar to the redundant control plane case. See my prior mail on that and why I suggested per peer configuration of this option. Curtis
|
|