Colby,
if you read the DCM draft carefully, you will find out that what you put
below is maybe funny, but not more than that.
Here are the significant differences between the two:
1. TTE is based on a backup paths, DCM calculates its own offload paths
2. LFA/TI-LFA does not take congestion into account, DCM offload path is
calculated to be congestion free
2. TTE does not support multiple congested links in the network at the
same time. Using multiple LFA/TI-LFA paths simultaneously on different
nodes can easily lead to loops.
3. TTE is proposed to be used for a short duration of the time and then
the TE is expected to recompute. DCM is meant to be used for long time
and does not need any TE action.
4. As a result of (3), DCM offload path is fully protected by
LFA/TI-LFA, TTE paths are note protected.
Contrary, the other draft that I pointed out in the RTGWG list, is way
more closer to the DCM.
regards,
Peter
On 16/07/2026 19:42, Colby Barth wrote:
All,
I would like to point authors of draft-psenak-lsr-igp-dcm-00to an
existing draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-rtgwg-tte/02/There is a
significant overlap between the two drafts, which makes me think that
either: a) the authors of the draft-psenak-lsr-igp-dcm-00were aware of
the original TTE work, but decided to publish their own draft anyway.
If that was the case, they should have at minimum referenced the TTE
draft and described the differences between the two, including the
motivations behind these differences. or b) the authors of the
draft-psenak-lsr-igp-dcm-00were not aware of the original TTE work, in
which case I would advise them to read the TTE draft before they take
any further action with their draft. Thanks,
—Colby
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
