I conditionally support it. I think we need several further studies; e.g. what are the RLFA friendly topologies, how can I improve my network to keep up full coverage (and what extra cost that has), what is the bidirectional coverage of RLFA (if path cannot be protected in either directions, the route is not protected), how many targeted LDP sessions are needed when the network is not the one operated by Stephane Litkowski, what is the coverage when there was a failure in our network previously and so on.
Gabor -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: opinions on adoption of draft-shand-remote-lfa as a WG draft draft-shand-remote-lfa was presented favorably this last IETF. There is known IPR associated with it on file ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1770/ ) This draft presents a solution for IP/LDP fast-reroute that does not guarantee 100% coverage but can substantially improve coverage over LFAs. We would like to initiate a WG poll to determine whether to adopt draft-shand-remote-lfa. We are, of course, interested in opinions and reasoning rather than simple yes/no. Thanks, Alia _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
