Makes sense. Alia
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Mike Shand <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm guessing P1 and P2 have been transposed in the diagram. > > Mike > > > On 13/08/2012 22:40, Alia Atlas wrote: >> >> In section 5: >> >> When a failure occurs on the link between PE1 and P2, PE1 does not >> have an LFA for traffic reachable via P1. Similarly, by symmetry, if >> the link between PE2 and P1 fails, PE2 does not have an LFA for >> traffic reachable via P2. >> >> Increasing the metric between PE1 and PE2 to allow the LFA would >> impact the normal traffic performance by potentially increasing the >> latency. >> | 100 | >> -P2---------P1- >> \ / >> 1000 \ / 1000 >> PE1---PE2 >> 5 >> >> Figure 3: Example SP topology >> >> I think this is probably a typo, where PE1 has no LFA to P2 and >> destinations beyond P2 for the failure of link PE1<->P2 and PE2 has no >> LFA to P1 for the failure of PE2<->P1. >> >> 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
