Hi Ice, On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:18 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alia, > > > > It is a gap and I'd like to see a short sentence about it in the draft. > Troubleshooting is very important. I don't expect this draft to address > it, but to indicate the gap would be, I believe, useful. > > Ok, I’ll add this to the draft. > Thanks > > Regarding the micro-loops related to MoFRR. I was not involved in the > private discussion you had regarding MoFRR, IGP re-convergence and loops. > So I can’t really address that concern. To me it does not look any > different from a normal IGP convergence with PIM and mLDP. Can clarify? > > > > Sure - the question is whether - during IGP reconvergence - either of > the trees will actually stay stable or will have micro-loops. If the > topology is basically split - so dual-plane backbone or the like - this > isn't an issue. However, for more interesting topologies, there can be > micro-loops that may affect the traffic even when it is using the secondary > tree. > > > > Again - just a brief sentence mentioning the concern to consider would > be useful. I think that'll help avoid surprises by folks interested in > MoFRR. > > I think what you are saying is that with non-DUAL plane topologies, there > is no guarantee that the secondary path is going to be stable, > un-interuppted traffic flow after switching to it. If the secondary path is > effected by the same failure that effected the primary path, any sort of > failure may apply here, including micro-loops. I don’t see any additional > concerns regarding micro-loops with MoFRR, do you agree? > > I can add a statement regarding the above in the draft, but its its not > specific to micro-loops.. > A general statement is fine. I think you are right that microloops aren't an extra concern. Regards, Alia > Thx, > > Ice.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
