Thanks, Peter. Would have been better if "LFA types" was expanded (perhaps in the terminology section). But, I understand this was borrowed from RFC8919 in the bis..
Regards, Muthu On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 3:28 PM Peter Psenak <[email protected]> wrote: > Muthu, > > On 14/08/2023 02:44, Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal wrote: > > Hi, > > > > draft-ietf-lsr-rfc8919bis defines the F-bit in SABM as: > > > > F-bit: Set to specify Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) (includes all LFA > > types). > > > > Does all LFA types mean LFA/RLFA/DLFA/TI-LFA as an application? > > if you need to advertise specific link-attributes for the purpose of > the LFA, you use the F-bit with ASLA. This includes all variants of the > LFA. > > thanks, > Peter > > > > > The draft references RFC5286 for LFA which defines link/node/SRLG > > protecting LFAs, but they are of a different category, right? TI-LFA for > > e.g. could be link/node/SRLG protecting.. > > > > Regards, > > Muthu > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
