+1 S
> On 26 Jul 2021, at 21:26, Peter Psenak <ppsenak=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > wrote: > > Hi Shraddha, > > On 26/07/2021 22:16, Shraddha Hegde wrote: >> WG, >> Regarding Peter’s comment on the mic that TI-LFA can divert from post >> convergence path when SRLG is used for computation I would like to clarify > >> that an operator is expected to do planning for the post convergence >> path accounting for the SRLG failures. > > TI-LFA does not always guarantee that backup path follows the > post-convergence path. > > It depends on what is the type of the backup computed and what is the actual > failure. When the two do not match, we can not guarantee the backup path > being equal to post convergence one. > > An example is when you are calculating a node protecting backup, but the > actual failure is a link failure, your backup path may not be the same as the > post convergence one. > > thanks, > Peter > > > >> draft-hu-spring-segment-routing-proxy-forwarding-14 is proposing a mechanism >> which will >> divert the traffic based on nodes being upgraded to support the protection. >> The paths >> could be quite divergent from post-convergence path and an operator would be >> expected >> to do planning to ensure these paths have sufficient bandwidth to take on >> traffic. >> Rgds >> Shraddha >> Juniper Business Use Only > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > spring@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
