Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-05

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (rtgwg WG)
Authors Shraddha Hegde  , Chris Bowers  , Hannes Gredler  , Stephane Litkowski 
Last updated 2016-06-12 (latest revision 2015-12-10)
Replaces draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Additional Resources
- Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
Document shepherd Jon Mitchell
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "Jon Mitchell" <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-05.txt

Abstract

The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA 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.

Authors

Shraddha Hegde (shraddha@juniper.net)
Chris Bowers (cbowers@juniper.net)
Hannes Gredler (hannes@gredler.at)
Stephane Litkowski (stephane.litkowski@orange.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)