RE: draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp-01 for review

Hi Curtis,

Irrespectively of this draft thanks to GMPLS IGP extensions as per
RFC's 4203 & 5307 SRLG info is there, it is up to implementation how to use it.  

Regards,
Jeff  

-----Original Message-----
From: rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Curtis Villamizar
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:35
To: Sriganesh Kini
Cc: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp-01 for review 

In message <CAOndX-tcB4UVQnWKKoRcdEp6h2jTRAAHFBWLqq-qwgnV5bUD-g@mail.gmail.com>
Sriganesh Kini writes:
>  
> Hello,
>  
> Regarding draft-kini-mpls-frr-ldp-01.
>  
> We had feedback from the mpls WG to present this draft at RTGWG. Since
> our request for a slot was late, there is a chance that we may not
> have adequate time at the end of the session for this draft. In any
> case we wanted to make the WG aware of the draft and would appreciate
> any comments.
>  
> Regards
>  
> - Sri

Protection is inherently a traffic engineering problem.  IPFRR
provides mostly limited coverage protection, without the benefit of
signaled SRLG, and with increased potential of transient route loops
in the abense of complete and accurate SRLG information or when
multiple failures occur that are not covered by SRLG.

LDP FRR has all the same issues as IPFRR.  So in general I don't
support LDP FRR.

Even if I did support an LDP FRR, I don't think this draft offers a
good approach to LDP FRR.

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