On 01/06/2012 08:33, András Császár wrote:
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
Hi Andras
I think we are in sync here.
As to what track to put this on, that is not obvious and is something
that we should discuss with Adrian (who is the AD responsible for the
draft)
Stewart
Note BTW that WRT this draft I am recused and speak only as an author.
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
