Re: [Bier] Comments on draft-chen-bier-frr-02.

[Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]>]

>
> In my view, the following does handle multiple failures to maximum extent:
>
>
> zzh> A better way is to simply have a single BIFT for both normal and FRR
> forwarding. Each entry has some ECMP and/or primary/backup branches,
> and you simply use another ECMP branch or a backup branch when the
> normally used branch fails. A backup branch can go through completely
> different nbr, or go through the same neighbor but via a tunnel.
>
> Consider that and the cost associated with building/maintaining multiple
> BIFTs, I would argue that the multiple per-nbr FRR BIFT approach, while
> perhaps acceptable for a particular implementation, is not ready yet for WG
> adoption.
>
>
>
> Please note that I am not arguing against LFA based FRR. I am just saying
> that the reference model of a single BIFT with ECMP/primary/backup branches
> for an entry is the best baseline.
>

as participant and from experience

+10

in that sense merling's paper seems a better model to talk about stuff.
Plus the technical concerns about the compressed multiple BIFTs on multiple
failures

-- tony