The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] draft--rsvp-lsp-fastreroute-07.txt : LRT
Hi group,
Sorry for the LATE comments...
A . Abstract Nit..
"in 10s of milliseconds"
First, is 90ms the best case for a local
re-route? This seems somewhat long and I missed
the reasoning why it isn't closer to 1 ms..
Is the timeframe the amount of time that a LSR
detects a link-failure? If the link-failure is
via a IGP OSPF protocol (hello protocol), then its
on the order of secs.
If the two timeframes differ dramaticlly, should
the more fine graular timeframe be communicated
and the adj questioned? Else what would be the
result of this level of time schizophrenia?
B. 4 . Local Repair technique : 4.1 One-to-one backup
First.. How do you know if the condition is link-local
or effecting the entire node? If it is a link-local
condition, R3's backup could be R3-R8-R4. Yes???
FYI: If it isn't a link-local issue, then
are all the the LSPs that transit the effected
link aware of the node issue? Should they all
revert to their backups??
C. 4.1 One-to-one backup
This may be extending this somewhat but..
Why wouldn't/couldn't R1-R6-R7-R8-R9-R5 be a another
primary established LSP, that is parallelling the R1->R5
protected LSP?
Would it save anything if the merge was always at R5
once we go thru a Rx backup?
D. 8.2 Handling Failures
I am trying to determine whether to separate short-term
link failures and whether their is/ should be any
recorvery for these types of failures..
I am reading that this section assumes temporary
failures due to the phrase "once the local link has
recovered". Is this correct?
Or should it be "If the local link has recovered..."
"may not accept Path messages" Is this phrase telling
us that the reliability is a consideration and that
switching between protected and backup LSPs is not
wanted?
However, now I have read that we had detected a
link failure with or without sending data thru
a backup, and now might NOT accept the original
protected LSP? Why wouldn't we want to accept Path
messages?
E. 8.2 Handling Failures
"Path and Resv state MUST NOT be cleared"
Why not?
"and PathTear and ResvErr messages MUST NOT be
sent immediately"
Why wait and how long to wait?
-------
Enough for me..
Mitchell Erblich
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|