Hi Stephane,
if link which you want to exclude is local to the calculating router
then implementation is trivial and doesn't need any signaling.
If link is not local then this is very similar to more general
problem of non-local SRLG. It was discussed but computation is
relatively complex and still needs investigation.
Anton
On 01/17/2012 05:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Hi all,
I made some simulation based on real topologies on LFA and remote LFA.
I saw some issues related to topologies and I wanted to have some
feedback on it.
We focus on P-P link failures.
In some ring topologies between Ps (which doesn't work very well with
LFA), alternate Ps are not eligible for LFAs (for some destinations) but
some PEs are eligible providing link protection for the P-P link failure.
We tried to apply remote LFA algorithm for non LFA eligible
destinations, and sometimes we have the same thing : PEs are used as
best rLFA because there is no eligible P.
PE are sometimes meshed with low BW link (compared to core links). So if
P core link fails, traffic will be switched on PE link (during
protection time) and so will potentially (high probability) make the
link congestionned.
From P point of view : traffic is protected, even if some traffic is
dropped due to congestion(CoS should prioritize traffic), it's better
than dropping all.
From PE point of view : some destinations of the PE where maybe not
using the P-P link that fails. But due to congestion of the link, they
become impacted. So impact for the PE is maybe greater than not having
LFA on the core (we are talking about few seconds of impact -> time for
the P to converge).
Note : it's not a one to one mapping of traffic between the P-P link
that fails and the P-PE link used as LFA. It will depend on how many
destinations are using this PE as LFA (and quantity of traffic per
destination). But we could clearly expect congestion as PE links are
sized only for their usage.
Do you think this is a real concern ?
If yes, is there already a proposal/solution to deal this issue ?
- like using TE informations (ISIS subTLV) to take account BW, and so
basically not protecting a link by a lower BW link
- preventing some links to be used as LFA
Thanks for your feedback
---
Stephane
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorization.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange shall not be liable if this
message was modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
