 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The remaining problem is the
relation between node protecting and link protecting inequality. Please read
the following words: As for node-protecting alternatives,
I read the following description in section 3.3. Broadcast and
NBMA Links: “Because
the shortest path from the pseudo-node goes through E, if a loop-free alternate
from a neighbor N is node-protecting, the alternate will also be
link-protecting unless the router S can only reach the alternate
neighbor N via the same pseudo-node.” This means only the SRLG of
broadcast and NBMA links make the node-protecting LFA failed to provide link
protection. Except for this, node-protecting alternate should always be link
protecting. Is that right? zhangkui |
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list rtgwg at ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg