IP Fast Reroute Framework
RFC 5714

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2009-10-06 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
How does section 4.2.2 explain the percentages given for various failure modes in section 4.2?  I see how section 4.2.2 describes how an analysis could be performed, but I don't see the specific analysis that gives the percentages in section 4.2.

Section 4.3 piqued my curiosity; it would be useful (but certainly not necessary) to say more:

4.3.  Local Area Networks

   Protection against partial or complete failure of LANs is more
   complex than the point to point case.  In general there is a trade-
   off between the simplicity of the repair and the ability to provide
   complete and optimal repair coverage.

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2009-10-07)
No email
send info
Section 2., paragraph 2:
>    Recent advances in routers have reduced this interval to under a
>    second for carefully configured networks using link state IGPs.
>    However, new Internet services are emerging which may be sensitive to
>    periods of traffic loss which are orders of magnitude shorter than
>    this.

  It'd be fair to point out that although fast reroute can significantly
  improve behavior under failures for such applications, it is no
  panacea. When the characteristics of the backup path are different
  from the primary path (less available capacity, but also even longer
  delay), some of those services will still experience some issues.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Record

Comment (2009-10-08)
No email
send info
Section 1

The definition of "E" uses the term "primary next-hop neighbor" but your
terminology defines the term "primary neighbor".

---

Section 1
Upstream forwarding loop defintion
s/none of which are/none of which is/

---

It is a slight editorial concern that some sections have multiple
numbered bullet lists using the same ordinals. Could you consider using
letters for second lists so there is no confusion between lists?