Subject: Re: one-hop forwarding loops and PLSN

From: stefano previdi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:41:07 +0200

Alia, Stewart,

On Sep 29, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
>
> Alia Atlas wrote:
>
>> A concern that Mike and Stewart have raised in the past about PLSN is  
>> that,
>> because PLSN doesn't prevent 100% of the loops, there can be
>> collateral damage due to looping traffic on some links.
>> What if there were the recommendation that (in this context) packets
>> cannot be sent back out the same interface that the packets were  
>> received on?
> That is a change to forwarding, and hence a change to hardware.
>
> As you say below is only a partial solution. On the other hand
> we do have solutions that fully solve the problem, one
> of which is control plane only change (oFIB/oSPF).

couldn't agree more...

> - Stewart
>
>> This would solve the collateral damage case for those single-hop  
>> loops that aren't
>> prevented.  Of course, it wouldn't help with the multi-hop loops.

the problem with this approach is that it will be
very hard from an operational perspective to detect
when a loop is expected and when not... so if the
solution doesn't solve 100% of case... I'd rather
look for something else.

s.

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

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