Hi Ice,
Thank you for the reply. Yes, it is not flip-flop, but unnecessary switch. 
Overall, I think this is a useful draft.

Thanks
Lizhong

 

IJsbrand Wijnands <[email protected]> wrote 2012/11/09 00:00:58:

> Hi Lizhong,
> 
> > I have one concern with the DTNP mechanism. When a node receives a
> DTNP from its primary UMH and the node has a secondary UMH for which
> no DTNP had been received beforehand, it unblocks its secondary UMH.
> But later it received DTNP from a secondary UMH, then the node again
> has to block its secondary UMH, right? 
> > It would be common that the node will receive DTNP from primary 
> UMH earlier than secondary UMH, then there would be a flip flop in a
> transient time. Have you considered this issue before? 
> 
> Yes, this is a situation where the MoFRR router can't repair the 
> failure, because the upstream path was shared by the primary and 
> backup path. The MoFRR router may switch to the secondary UMH 
> unnecessary (for a short time), but it will not flip-flop. The MoFRR
> router keeps track of getting a DTNP on both primary and secondary 
> (section 3.2).  If this happens, the DTNP will be forwarded 
> downstream to allow an other downstream MoFRR router to repair the 
> failure. If there is no other MoFRR router, it means MoFRR did not 
> provide full coverage to remedy the failure. 
> 
> Thx,
> 
> Ice.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > Lizhong
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:03:05 +0200
> > > From: IJsbrand Wijnands <[email protected]>
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Subject: draft-wijnands-rtgwg-mcast-frr-tn-00.txt
> > > Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > 
> > > Hi Folks,
> > > 
> > > I like to encourage the WG to read through this draft so that we can
> > > have productive discussion at the IETF.
> > > 
> > > In short, this draft proposes two enhancements to Multicast Only 
> > > Fast ReRoute (draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-00).
> > > 
> > > 1. A router on the tree that detects a failure on its upstream (RPF)
> > > interface injects a Downstream Tree Notification (DTN) down the tree
> > > to notify (potential) downstream MoFRR routers. When a downstream 
> > > MoFRR router has received such notification, it will switch to the 
> > > backup path. The notification is sent as data down the tree and 
> > > forwarded as 'normal' data by non-MoFRR routers. In order to allow 
> > > Fast Convergence to happen, originating and processing of the TN 
> > > message must happen in the data-plane, similar to how BFD packets 
> > > are processed in the data-plane. The big different with BFD is that 
> > > TN packets are not periodic, but only triggered when a failure 
happens.
> > > 
> > > 2. With normal MoFRR, packets are received over two diverse paths to
> > > the MoFRR router. While in many cases this is not considered to be a
> > > problem, there are situations where the additional bandwidth may be 
> > > worth saving. For this cases we are proposing to join the backup 
> > > path in 'standby' mode, such that forwarding state is programmed, 
> > > but no data is actually forwarded. When a failure has happened on 
> > > the tree (detected by Downstream TN or directly connected link 
> > > failure) an Upstream Tree Notification (UTN) is originated up the 
> > > tree to reset the non-forwarding state. This notification is also 
> > > originated and processed in the data-plane. Note, this is optional 
> > > functionality. The main advantage of this draft comes from option 1.
> > > 
> > > Thx,
> > > 
> > > Andras, Jeff and Ice.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > 
> > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > Subject: I-D Action: draft-wijnands-rtgwg-mcast-frr-tn-00.txt
> > > > Date: 15 Oct 2012 21:22:11 GMT+02:00
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> > > directories.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >    Title           : Tree Notification to Improve Multicast Fast 
Reroute
> > > >    Author(s)       : IJsbrand Wijnands
> > > >                          Andras Csaszar
> > > >                          Jeff Tantsura
> > > >    Filename        : draft-wijnands-rtgwg-mcast-frr-tn-00.txt
> > > >    Pages           : 18
> > > >    Date            : 2012-10-15
> > > > 
> > > > Abstract:
> > > >   This draft proposes using dataplane triggered notifications in 
order
> > > >   to support multicast fast reroute methods in various ways. 
Sending
> > > >   such notifications down the tree can be used to trigger 
fail-over in
> > > >   nodes not adjacent to the failure.  Sending such dataplane
> > > >   notification up the tree can help to activate pre-built standby
> > > >   backup tree segments.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wijnands-rtgwg-mcast-frr-tn
> > > > 
> > > > There's also a htmlized version available at:
> > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wijnands-rtgwg-mcast-frr-tn-00
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > I-D-Announce mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> > > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> > > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> 
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to