Re: progressing draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-06 [AUTHOR RESPONSE NEEDED]

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ice,

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:18 AM, IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]> 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.