On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Olivier Bonaventure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All the work on MPLS and IP-based fast reroute shows that the best way > to deal quickly with link failures is to recover *locally*. Path failure > should be solved by the routing system and not affect the mapping > system. Let's not overload the mapping system...
Olivier, Don't you think that's a more appropriate argument for the merits of one approach versus another? The goal on this thread is to come up with a set of minimum standards that all approaches should meet in order to be considered. Fast recovery for what we expect to be an achievable definition of fast is an appropriate minimum standard. Local recovery is one possible method for achieving that standard, not a standard itself. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
