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

[IJsbrand Wijnands <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 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..

Thx,

Ice.