Operational management of Loop Free Alternates
draft-litkowski-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-01
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stephane Litkowski , Bruno Decraene , Clarence Filsfils , Syed Kamran Raza | ||
| Last updated | 2013-08-22 (Latest revision 2013-02-18) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Loop Free Alternates (LFA), as defined in RFC 5286 is an IP Fast ReRoute (IP FRR) mechanism enabling traffic protection for IP traffic (and MPLS LDP traffic by extension). Following first deployment experiences, this document provides operational feedback on LFA, highlights some limitations, and proposes a set of refinements to address those limitations. It also proposes required management specifications. This proposal is also applicable to remote LFA solution.
Authors
Stephane Litkowski
Bruno Decraene
Clarence Filsfils
Syed Kamran Raza
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)