Subject: RE: WG Item?: draft-zinin-microloop-analysis-01.txt

From: "Don Fedyk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:07:56 -0400

Hi Bill

I think this should be a WG item. Also I think we need to make sure that it
is clear we are selecting a simple algorithm.  It seems to be that
discussion of the complexity overshadows the benefit of this work.  

IMHO what is important in this document is we have cases where we installed
loop free alternates due to a topology change and we need to switch to the
converged shortest path primaries when they become micro-loop free to get
back to normal forwarding. 

It is a simple case of install new primaries this too fast and you negate
the value of the LFA. Do it too slow and you unduly affect traffic
convergence (of the LFA paths) and the possibly ability to install LFA for
the next topology change. (IMHO Neither of these is serious and still better
than the situation without LFA).

Regards,
Don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Bill Fenner

> There's certainly been discussion on the technical content, 
> but let's look for consensus on the meta-issue: should this 
> document be a rtgwg work item?  Let's make this a 1 week WG 
> call for comments; both for and against (well, we don't 
> *need* any against, but if they're there I want to hear 
> them!).  I'll evaluate WG consensus on June 22.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Bill

_______________________________________________
Rtgwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg