Subject: Generic Fault-avoidance Routing Protocol for Data Center Networks - draft-sl-rtgwg-far-dcn-01

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:45:45 +0000

I believe this document needs some significant revision before it is considered or even presented again. Rather then spending 8 pages listing comparing FAR to some naïve OSPF implementation and claiming that it solves all the attendant routing problems, you should start the draft with an overview of the protocol and including some concrete arguments as to why it scales better than existing IGPs. Then you need to provide a more detailed description of how the protocol works. It is not apparent from the text and there are a number of unanswered questions. For example, if flooding is unreliable, how do you know reachability and failures are propagated? What constitutes a “regular topology”?

Thanks,
Acee