On 23/05/2014 13:43, Chris Bowers wrote:
Authors,
Below are two comments on draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-05.
1) A section should be added to the document clarifying what the
expected behavior is for RLFA when routers advertise themselves as not
desiring to carry transit traffic or links have been costed out.
RFC5286 has a useful section on this topic entitled "Interactions with
IS-IS Overload, RFC 3137, and Costed Out Links". The current document
would benefit from additional clarity in this topic.
New section 4.4.
The consideration concerning interactions with IS-IS Overload, [RFC3137],
and costed out links as described in [RFC5286] apply. In selecting a PQ
node a PLR MUST exclude any candidate that is reachable (including via
ECMP)
from the PLR via a path subject to one of the above exclusions.
The method of determining the exclusion is a local matter.
2) The current document doesn't appear to say anything about the
expected behavior of RLFA when the IGP has multiple areas or levels.
It would be useful to either address this topic, or explicitly narrow
the scope of the document to describing the behavior when the IGP has
a single area or level.
I have added to the bottom of the intro:
This document considers the case when the repair path is confined to
either a
single area or to the level two routing domain. In all other cases, the
chosen
PQ node should be regarded as a tunnel adjacency of the repairing node,
and the considerations described in Section 6 of [RFC5286] taken
into account.
- Stewart
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
