I don't see it as an either/or question. You still need BFD for failure detection. Nothing happens until a failure is detected. (r)LFA fixes the rest of the convergence equation, mainly the time it takes to notify neighbors and recompute a path and what can be the biggest delay, re-programming the data plane on hardware platforms.
Since LFA does this all ahead of time you can keep traffic flowing as soon as the failure is detected (+ the time it takes to move a single pointer). It's also not a replacement for IGP tuning (like SPF calc delay) but it makes it a lot less important. Overall I'm a big fan of LFA, if you can spare the TCAM/hardware adjacency space for it (remember, you are programming two entries in for every path that is backed up. The original primary and the backup path). It's TE-FRR for the rest of us. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Mark Tinka <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, August 29, 2013 03:54:47 PM Pete Lumbis wrote: > > > I don't want to confuse aggressive IGP hellos with > > aggressive IGP protocol tuning. I'm all for tuning SPF, > > et al. timers under the protocol. It's the only way you > > get fast convergence. My beef is with sub-second hellos, > > which BFD does a better job of. > > Yes, agree - BFD takes care of the Hellos. > > Any thoughts of dumping BFD in favour of (r)LFA? > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
