HI,

All members of the same SRLG group are assumed to fail if one of them fails.

Going back to you example
- L1 is in the same SRLG group as the primary link while L2 is belongs a different group
- Hence if the primary link fails, only "L1" will fail and L2 will not
- Hence only L2 is candidate to become a backup path while L1 is not
- Hence there is no ambiguity

Thanks

Ahmed


On 8/1/2017 12:42 AM, Sikhivahan Gundu wrote:

Hi,

The draft mandates using "post-convergence path" as the backup path.

It states one advantage, among others, of doing so as follows:

"This .. helps to reduce the amount of path changes and hence service

transients: one transition (pre-convergence to post-convergence) instead

of two (pre-convergence to FRR and then post-convergence)".

This suggests to me that the assumption here is that the post-convergence

path can be uniquely determined in advance.

However, SRLG introduces ambiguity. To illustrate the point, let us say a

loop-free alternative has two options: one link (L1) is of the same metric

value as the primary link and is also in the same SRLG as the primary; the

second option (L2) is in a different SRLG and has higher metric.

The actual post-convergence path would depend on whether or not L1

also failed along with the primary, so is not uniquely computed in advance.

If TI-LFA picks L1, there might not be a guaranteed backup. If it picks L2,

there'd be two link transitions because L2 would not be in a (strict) SPF-

computed post-convergence path. A third option, of course, is to give up

declaring that there is no TI-LFA backup, but it'd be preferable to have

some backup than have none at all.

What do the authors suggest for this situation?

Thanks,

Sikhi

*From:*rtgwg [mailto:rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ahmed Bashandy (bashandy)
*Sent:* 17 July 2017 12:56
*To:* rtgwg@ietf.org
*Cc:* rtgwg-cha...@ietf.org; pfr...@gmail.com; Stewart Bryant <stew...@g3ysx.org.uk> *Subject:* Fwd: I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

Hi,

A new version of the ti-lfa draft has been posted to address Stewart Bryant's comments

Thanks

Ahmed


-------- Original Message --------

*Subject: *

        

I-D Action: draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt

*Date: *

        

Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:19:37 -0700

*From: *

        

internet-dra...@ietf.org <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>

*Reply-To: *

        

internet-dra...@ietf.org <mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org>

*To: *

        

<i-d-annou...@ietf.org> <mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
         Authors         : Ahmed Bashandy
                           Clarence Filsfils
                           Bruno Decraene
                           Stephane Litkowski
                           Pierre Francois
         Filename        : draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01.txt
         Pages           : 12
         Date            : 2017-07-17
Abstract:
    This document presents Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast
    Re-route (TI-LFA), aimed at providing protection of node and
    adjacency segments within the Segment Routing (SR) framework.  This
    Fast Re-route (FRR) behavior builds on proven IP-FRR concepts being
    LFAs, remote LFAs (RLFA), and remote LFAs with directed forwarding
    (DLFA).  It extends these concepts to provide guaranteed coverage in
    any IGP network.  A key aspect of TI-LFA is the FRR path selection
    approach establishing protection over post-convergence paths from
    the point of local repair, dramatically reducing the operational
    need to control the tie-breaks among various FRR options.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa/
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bashandy-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-01
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
i-d-annou...@ietf.org  <mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories:http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
orftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg

Reply via email to