%% You should probably cite rfc8102 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04, number = {draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-04}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection/04/}, author = {Hannes Gredler and Shraddha Hegde and Harish Raghuveer and Chris Bowers and Stephane Litkowski}, title = {{Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability}}, pagetotal = 16, year = 2015, month = oct, day = 14, abstract = {The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA {[}RFC7490{]} specification guarantees only link-protection. The resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not guarantee node-protection for all destinations being protected by it. This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node provides node-protection for a specific destination or not. The document also shows how the same procedure can be utilised for collection of complete characteristics for alternate paths. Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not fitting constraints.}, }