[trimmed cc; presumably copying the WG is sufficient] Hi Ketan,
Can you help me understand what you’re driving toward with this comment? On Nov 15, 2024, at 5:44 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.i...@gmail.com> wrote: In addition to the above text change suggestions, I would remind that strict following of post-convergence is not guaranteed by TI-LFA as it depends on the protection scheme selected. There is the following text that explains this scenario in Appendix A. Readers should be aware that FRR protection is pre-computing a backup path to protect against a particular type of failure (link, node, SRLG). When using the post-convergence path as FRR backup path, the computed post-convergence path is the one considering the failure we are protecting against. This means that FRR is using an expected post-convergence path, and this expected post-convergence path may be actually different from the post-convergence path used if the failure that happened is different from the failure FRR was protecting against. As an example, if the operator has implemented a protection against a node failure, the expected post-convergence path used during FRR will be the one considering that the node has failed. However, even if a single link is failing or a set of links is failing (instead of the full node), the node-protecting post-convergence path will be used. The consequence is that the path used during FRR is not optimal with respect to the failure that has actually occurred. I agree with your statement; however, I’m a little baffled as to how it connects with the rest of the conversation. Thanks, —John
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
