On 9 September 2012 22:45, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> wrote:
> The expected use of this technology in the failure case > is in conjunction with IPFRR where following a protected > failure, and in the absence of a convergence control > technology, microloops may form and/or the repair > may be staved. If failure cannot be IPFRR protected, conventional FIB insertion would be used? > Note not only do you need to learn of the failure > and compute the new SPF, you also need to update the > FIB. The FIB update time can be the dominant factor in > re-convergence. Yes, certain modern chassis based L3 switch can literally take >hour in real network to update its FIB. I once thought of sending commit-to-FIB absolute time in TLV in LSP (Router NTP can give 500us precision easily). But maybe that wouldn't be deterministic enough. In oFIB I fear that FIB delay in devices I'd actually want to use in practical scenarios are less than my linkdelays, so signalling would just reduce convergence time. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
