In-line [Uma1]: -- Uma C.
From: Pushpasis Sarkar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 11:14 AM To: Uma Chunduri; [email protected]; Alia Atlas Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Chris Bowers Subject: RE: WG Adoption Call for draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection [Uma]: So we do few hundreds of fSPF from each neighbor for base LFA then few hundreds for Q space rSPFs and few more hundreds for rSPFs from PQ nodes depending on the network/heuristics for each primary SPF right. Did you see your 1msec is multiplied few multiple hundred times here. [Pushpasis] Few hundreds fSPFS for PQnodes are not necessary. 8-16 PQ nodes selected using the default heuristic in this draft provide quite a good amount of coverage. [Uma1]: "8-16 PQ nodes/ quite a good amount of coverage/ few additional fSPFs (~10)" Well, we all know the above qualifications are purely subjective and completely depends on the topology, number of total nodes, number of total interfaces etc.. If the total number of candidate PQ nodes are in the order of multiple hundreds and with LFA manageability considerations like per prefix options are enabled limiting to a marginal value to 8-16 PQ nodes may not give the gains we are seeking to start with. I think we are back to heuristics. However, I know with some tricky heuristics we can limit the fSPFs and total number of candidate PQs.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
