Hi Stewart, >> I think that you omitted to note that RLFA supports incremental deployment well, and in particular needs no new protocols. This is in contrast to all of the alternatives that have been put on the table, which require the on-repair-path nodes to change. <<
[András] I didn’t omit it, just didn’t give it a list letter. ☺ I perfectly agree with you, and I had the following question about this: >> Neither LFA, nor RLFA do not require any sort of cooperation with any other >> entity: what needs to be a standard in their cases? Both sound like a >> node-internal feature or a best practice or something like that.<< It not only needs no new protocols, it needs no new forms of cooperation with any other entity. Other nodes need to support IP encaps/decaps, LDP and TLDP, but these are other RFCs. András _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
