Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa
draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa
Network Working Group S. Bryant
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Standards Track S. Previdi
Expires: August 3, 2015 Cisco Systems
M. Shand
Independent Contributor
N. So
Vinci Systems
January 30, 2015
Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Re-Route (FRR)
draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-11
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the basic IP fast re-route
mechanism described in RFC5286, that provides additional backup
connectivity for point to point link failures when none can be
provided by the basic mechanisms.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 3, 2015.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview of Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Tunnels as Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Tunnel Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Construction of Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Identifying Required Tunneled Repair Paths . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Determining Tunnel End Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Computing Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Selecting Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. A Cost Based RLFA Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Interactions with IS-IS Overload, RFC6987, and Costed
Out Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Example Application of Remote LFAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Node Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Operation in an LDP environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Analysis of Real World Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Topology Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. LFA only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.3. RLFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.4. Comparison of LFA an RLFA results . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Management and Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Historical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
1. Introduction
RFC 5714 [RFC5714] describes a framework for IP Fast Re-route (IPFRR)
and provides a summary of various proposed IPFRR solutions. A basic
mechanism using loop-free alternates (LFAs) is described in [RFC5286]
that provides good repair coverage in many topologies [RFC6571],
especially those that are highly meshed. However, some topologies,
notably ring based topologies are not well protected by LFAs alone
because there is no neighbor of the point of local repair (PLR) that
has a cost to the destination without traversing the failure that is
cheaper than the cost to the destination via the failure.
The method described in this document extends LFA approach described
in [RFC5286] to cover many of these cases by tunneling the packets
that require IPFRR to a node that is both reachable from the PLR and
can reach the destination.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terms defined in [RFC5714]. This section
defines additional terms that are used in this document.
Repair tunnel A tunnel established for the purpose of providing a
virtual neighbor which is a Loop Free Alternate.
P-space The P-space of a router with respect to a protected
link is the set of routers reachable from that
specific router using the pre-convergence shortest
paths, without any of those paths (including equal
cost path splits) transiting that protected link.
For example, the P-space of S with respect to link
S-E, is the set of routers that S can reach without
using the protected link S-E.
Extended P-space
Consider the set of neighbours of a router protecting
a link. Exclude from that set of routers the router
reachable over the protected link. The extended
P-space of the protecting router with respect to the
protected link is the union of the P-spaces of the
neighbours in that set of neighbours with respect to
the protected link (see Section 5.2.1.2).
Q-space Q-space of a router with respect to a protected link
is the set of routers from which that specific router
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
can be reached without any path (including equal cost
path splits) transiting that protected link.
PQ node A PQ node of a node S with respect to a protected link
S-E is a node which is a member of both the P-space
(or the extended P-space) of S with respect to that
protected link S-E and the Q-space of E with respect
to that protected link S-E. A repair tunnel endpoint
is chosen from the set of PQ-nodes.
Remote LFA (RLFA) The use of a PQ node rather than a neighbour of
the repairing node as the next hop in an LFA repair
[RFC5286].
In this document the notation X-Y is used to mean the path from X to
Y over the link directly connecting X and Y, whilst the notation X->Y
refers to the shortest path from X to Y via some set of unspecified
nodes including the null set (i.e. Including over a link directly
connecting X and Y).
3. Overview of Solution
The problem of LFA IPFRR reachability in some networks is illustrated
by the network fragment shown in Figure 1 below.
S---E
/ \
A D
\ /
B---C
Figure 1: A simple ring topology
If all link costs are equal, traffic transiting link S-E cannot be
fully protected by LFAs. The destination C is an ECMP from S, and so
traffic to C can be protected when S-E fails, but traffic to D and E
are not protectable using LFAs.
This document describes extensions to the basic repair mechanism in
which tunnels are used to provide additional logical links which can
then be used as loop free alternates where none exist in the original
topology. In Figure 1 S can reach A, B, and C without going via S-E;
these form S's extended P-space with respect to S-E. The routers
that can reach E without going through S-E will be in E's Q-space
with respect to link S-E; these are D and C. B has equal-cost paths
to E via B-A-S-E and B-C-D-E and so the forwarder at S might choose
to send a packet to E via link S-E. Hence B is not in the Q-space of
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
E with respect to link S-E. The single node in both S's extended
P-space and E's Q-space is C; thus node C is selected as the repair
tunnel's end-point. Thus, if a tunnel is provided between S and C as
shown in Figure 2 then C, now being a direct neighbor of S would
become an LFA for D and E. The definition of (extended-)P space and
Q space are provided in Section 2 and details of the calculation of
the tunnel end points is provided in Section 5.2.
The non-failure traffic distribution is not disrupted by the
provision of such a tunnel since it is only used for repair traffic
and MUST NOT be used for normal traffic. Note that Operations and
Maintenance (OAM) traffic specifically to verify the viability of the
repair MAY traverse the tunnel prior to a failure.
S---E
/ \ \
A \ D
\ \ /
B---C
Figure 2: The addition of a tunnel
The use of this technique is not restricted to ring based topologies,
but is a general mechanism which can be used to enhance the
protection provided by LFAs. A study of the protection achieved
using remote LFA in typical service provider core networks is
provided in Section 9, and a side by side comparison between LFA and
remote LFA is provided in Section 9.4.
Remote LFA is suitable for incremental deployment within a network,
including a network that is already deploying LFA. Computation of
the repair path requires acceptable CPU resources, and takes place
exclusively on the repairing node. In MPLS networks the targeted LDP
protocol needed to learn the label binding at the repair tunnel
endpoint Section 8 is a well understood and widely deployed
technology.
The technique described in this document is directed at providing
repairs in the case of link failures. Considerations regarding node
failures are discussed in Section 7. This memo describes a solution
to the case where the failure occurs on a point to point link. It
covers the case where the repair first hop is reached via a broadcast
or non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) link such as a LAN, and the case
where the P or Q node is attached via such a link. It does not
however cover the more complicated case where the failed interface is
a broadcast or non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) link.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
This document considers the case when the repair path is confined to
either a single area or to the level two routing domain. In all
other cases, the chosen PQ node should be regarded as a tunnel
adjacency of the repairing node, and the considerations described in
Section 6 of [RFC5286] taken into account.
4. Repair Paths
As with LFA FRR, when a router detects an adjacent link failure, it
uses one or more repair paths in place of the failed link. Repair
paths are pre-computed in anticipation of later failures so they can
be promptly activated when a failure is detected.
A tunneled repair path tunnels traffic to some staging point in the
network from which it is known that, in the absence of a worse than
anticipated failure, the traffic will travel to its destination using
normal forwarding without looping back. This is equivalent to
providing a virtual loop-free alternate to supplement the physical
loop-free alternates. Hence the name "Remote LFA FRR". In its
simplest form, when a link cannot be entirely protected with local
LFA neighbors, the protecting router seeks the help of a remote LFA
staging point. Network manageability considerations may lead to a
repair strategy that uses a remote LFA more frequently
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability].
Examples of worse failures are node failures (see Section 7 ), the
failure of a shared risk link group (SRLG), the independent
concurrent failures of multiple links, broadcast or non-broadcast
multi-access (NBMA) links Section 3 ; protecting against such worse
failures is out of scope for this specification.
4.1. Tunnels as Repair Paths
Consider an arbitrary protected link S-E. In LFA FRR, if a path to
the destination from a neighbor N of S does not cause a packet to
loop back over the link S-E (i.e. N is a loop-free alternate), then
S can send the packet to N and the packet will be delivered to the
destination using the pre-failure forwarding information. If there
is no such LFA neighbor, then S may be able to create a virtual LFA
by using a tunnel to carry the packet to a point in the network which
is not a direct neighbor of S from which the packet will be delivered
to the destination without looping back to S. In this document such
a tunnel is termed a repair tunnel. The tail-end of this tunnel (the
repair tunnel endpoint) is a "PQ node" and the repair mechanism is a
"remote LFA". This tunnel MUST NOT traverse the link S-E.
Note that the repair tunnel terminates at some intermediate router
between S and E, and not E itself. This is clearly the case, since
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
if it were possible to construct a tunnel from S to E then a
conventional LFA would have been sufficient to effect the repair.
4.2. Tunnel Requirements
There are a number of IP in IP tunnel mechanisms that may be used to
fulfil the requirements of this design, such as IP-in-IP [RFC1853]
and GRE[RFC1701] .
In an MPLS enabled network using LDP[RFC5036], a simple label
stack[RFC3032] may be used to provide the required repair tunnel. In
this case the outer label is S's neighbor's label for the repair
tunnel end point, and the inner label is the repair tunnel end
point's label for the packet destination. In order for S to obtain
the correct inner label it is necessary to establish a targeted LDP
session[RFC5036] to the tunnel end point.
The selection of the specific tunnelling mechanism (and any necessary
enhancements) used to provide a repair path is outside the scope of
this document. The deployment in an MPLS/LDP environment is
relatively simple in the data plane as an LDP LSP from S to the
repair tunnel endpoint (the selected PQ node) is readily available,
and hence does not require any new protocol extension or design
change. This LSP is automatically established as a basic property of
LDP behavior. The performance of the encapsulation and decapsulation
is efficient as encapsulation is just a push of one label (like
conventional MPLS TE FRR) and the decapsulation is normally
configured to occur at the penultimate hop before the repair tunnel
endpoint. In the control plane, a targeted LDP (TLDP) session is
needed between the repairing node and the repair tunnel endpoint,
which will need to be established and the labels processed before the
tunnel can be used. The time to establish the TLDP session and
acquire labels will limit the speed at which a new tunnel can be put
into service. This is not anticipated to be a problem in normal
operation since the managed introduction and removal of links is
relatively rare as is the incidence of failure in a well managed
network.
When a failure is detected, it is necessary to immediately redirect
traffic to the repair path. Consequently, the repair tunnel used
MUST be provisioned beforehand in anticipation of the failure. Since
the location of the repair tunnels is dynamically determined it is
necessary to automatically establish the repair tunnels. Multiple
repair tunnels may share a tunnel end point.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
5. Construction of Repair Paths
5.1. Identifying Required Tunneled Repair Paths
Not all links will require protection using a tunneled repair path.
Referring to Figure 1, if E can already be protected via an LFA, S-E
does not need to be protected using a repair tunnel, since all
destinations normally reachable through E must therefore also be
protectable by an LFA. Such an LFA is frequently termed a "link
LFA". Tunneled repair paths (which may be calculated per-prefix) are
only required for links which do not have a link or per-prefix LFA.
It should be noted that using the Q-space of E as a proxy for the
Q-space of each destination can result in failing to identify valid
remote LFAs. The extent to which this reduces the effective
protection coverage is topology dependent.
5.2. Determining Tunnel End Points
The repair tunnel endpoint needs to be a node in the network
reachable from S without traversing S-E. In addition, the repair
tunnel end point needs to be a node from which packets will normally
flow towards their destination without being attracted back to the
failed link S-E.
Note that once released from the tunnel, the packet will be
forwarded, as normal, on the shortest path from the release point to
its destination. This may result in the packet traversing the router
E at the far end of the protected link S-E, but this is obviously not
required.
The properties that are required of repair tunnel end points are
therefore:
o The repair tunneled point MUST be reachable from the tunnel source
without traversing the failed link; and
o When released from the tunnel, packets MUST proceed towards their
destination without being attracted back over the failed link.
Provided both these requirements are met, packets forwarded over the
repair tunnel will reach their destination, and will not loop after a
single link failure.
In some topologies it will not be possible to find a repair tunnel
endpoint that exhibits both the required properties. For example if
the ring topology illustrated in Figure 1 had a cost of 4 for the
link B-C, while the remaining links were cost 1, then it would not be
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
possible to establish a tunnel from S to C (without resorting to some
form of source routing).
5.2.1. Computing Repair Paths
To compute the repair path for link S-E it is necessary to determine
the set of routers which can be reached from S without traversing
S-E, and match this with the set of routers from which the node E can
be reached, by normal forwarding, without traversing the link S-E.
The approach used in this memo is as follows:
o The method of computing the set of routers which can be reached
from S on the shortest path tree without traversing S-E is
described. This is called the S's P-space with respect to the
failure of link S-E.
o The distance of the tunnel endpoint from the point of local repair
(PLR) is increased by noting that S is able to use the P-Space of
its neighbours with respect to the failure of link S-E, since S
can determine which neighbour it will use as the next hop for the
repair. This is called the S's Extended P-space with respect to
the failure of link S-E. The use of extended P-space allows
greater repair coverage and is the preferred approach.
o Finally two methods of computing the set of routers from which the
node E can be reached, by normal forwarding, without traversing
the link S-E. This is called the Q-space of E with respect to the
link S-E.
The selection of the preferred node from the set of nodes that an in
both Extended P-Space and Q-Space with respect to the S-E is
described in Section 5.2.2.
A suitable cost based algorithm to compute the set of nodes common to
both extended P-space and Q-space with respect to the S-E is provided
in Section 5.3.
5.2.1.1. P-space
The set of routers which can be reached from S on the shortest path
tree without traversing S-E is termed the P-space of S with respect
to the link S-E. This P-space can be obtained by computing a
shortest path tree (SPT) rooted at S and excising the sub-tree
reached via the link S-E (including those routers which are members
of an ECMP that includes link S-E). The exclusion of routers
reachable via an ECMP that includes S-E prevents the forwarding
subsystem from attempting to execute a repair via the failed link
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
S-E. Thus for example, if the SPF computation stores at each node
the next-hops to be used to reach that node from S, then the node can
be added to P-space if none of its next-hops are link S-E. In the
case of Figure 1 this P-space comprises nodes A and B only.
Expressed in cost terms the set of routers {P} are those for which
the shortest path cost S->P is strictly less than the shortest path
cost S->E->P.
5.2.1.2. Extended P-space
The description in Section 5.2.1.1 calculated router S's P-space
rooted at S itself. However, since router S will only use a repair
path when it has detected the failure of the link S-E, the initial
hop of the repair path need not be subject to S's normal forwarding
decision process. Thus the concept of extended P-space is
introduced. Router S's extended P-space is the union of the P-spaces
of each of S's neighbours (N). This may be calculated by computing a
shortest path tree (SPT) at each of S's neighbors (excluding E) and
excising the subtree reached via the path N->S->E. Note this will
excise those routers which are reachable through all ECMPs that
includes link S-E. The use of extended P-space may allow router S to
reach potential repair tunnel end points that were otherwise
unreachable. In cost terms a router (P) is in extended P-space if
the shortest path cost N->P is strictly less than the shortest path
cost N->S->E->P. In other words, once the packet it forced to N by
S, it is a lower cost for it to continue on to P by any path except
one that takes it back to S and then across the S->E link.
Since in the case of Figure 1 node A is a per-prefix LFA for the
destination node C, the set of extended P-space nodes with respect to
link S-E comprises nodes A, B and C. Since node C is also in E's
Q-space with respect to link S-E, there is now a node common to both
extended P-space and Q-space which can be used as a repair tunnel
end-point to protect the link S-E.
5.2.1.3. Q-space
The set of routers from which the node E can be reached, by normal
forwarding, without traversing the link S-E is termed the Q-space of
E with respect to the link S-E. The Q-space can be obtained by
computing a reverse shortest path tree (rSPT) rooted at E, with the
sub-tree which might traverse the protected link S-E excised (i.e.
those nodes that would send the packet via S-E plus those nodes which
have an ECMP set to E with one or more members of that ECMP set
traversing the protected link S-E). The rSPT uses the cost towards
the root rather than from it and yields the best paths towards the
root from other nodes in the network. In the case of Figure 1 the
Q-space of E with respect to S-E comprises nodes C and D only.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
Expressed in cost terms the set of routers {Q} are those for which
the shortest path cost Q<-E is strictly less than the shortest path
cost Q<-S<-E. In Figure 1 the intersection of the E's Q-space with
respect to S-E with S's P-space with respect to S-E defines the set
of viable repair tunnel end-points, known as "PQ nodes". As can be
seen, for the case of Figure 1 there is no common node and hence no
viable repair tunnel end-point. However when the extended the
extended P-space Section 5.2.1.2 at S with respect to S-E is
considered, a suitable intersection is found at C.
Note that the Q-space calculation could be conducted for each
individual destination and a per-destination repair tunnel end point
determined. However this would, in the worst case, require an SPF
computation per destination which is not currently considered to be
scalable. Therefore the Q-space of E with respect to link S-E is
used as a proxy for the Q-space of each destination. This
approximation is obviously correct since the repair is only used for
the set of destinations which were, prior to the failure, routed
through node E. This is analogous to the use of link-LFAs rather
than per-prefix LFAs.
5.2.2. Selecting Repair Paths
The mechanisms described above will identify all the possible repair
tunnel end points that can be used to protect a particular link. In
a well-connected network there are likely to be multiple possible
release points for each protected link. All will deliver the packets
correctly so, arguably, it does not matter which is chosen. However,
one repair tunnel end point may be preferred over the others on the
basis of path cost or some other selection criteria.
There is no technical requirement for the selection criteria to be
consistent across all routers, but such consistency may be desirable
from an operational point of view. In general there are advantages
in choosing the repair tunnel end point closest (shortest metric) to
S. Choosing the closest maximises the opportunity for the traffic to
be load balanced once it has been released from the tunnel. For
consistency in behavior, it is RECOMMENDED that the member of the set
of routers {PQ} with the lowest cost S->P be the default choice for
P. In the event of a tie the router with the lowest node identifier
SHOULD be selected.
It is a local matter whether the repair path selection policy used by
the router favours LFA repairs over RLFA repairs. An LFA repair has
the advantage of not requiring the use of tunnel, however network
manageability considerations may lead to a repair strategy that uses
a remote LFA more frequently [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability].
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
As described in [RFC5286], always selecting a PQ node that is
downstream to the destination with respect to the repairing node,
prevents the formation of loops when the failure is worse than
expected. The use of downstream nodes reduces the repair coverage,
and operators are advised to determine whether adequate coverage is
achieved before enabling this selection feature.
5.3. A Cost Based RLFA Algorithm
The preceding text has described the computation of the remote LFA
repair target (PQ) in terms of the intersection of two reachability
graphs computed using a shortest path first (SPF) algorithm. This
section describes a method of computing the remote LFA repair target
for a specific failed link using a cost based algorithm. The pseudo-
code provided in this section avoids unnecessary SPF computations,
but for the sake of readability, it does not otherwise try to
optimize the code. The algorithm covers the case where the repair
first hop is reached via a broadcast or non-broadcast multi-access
(NBMA) link such as a LAN. It also covers the case where the P or Q
node is attached via such a link. It does not cover the case where
the failed interface is a broadcast or non-broadcast multi-access
(NBMA) link. To address that case it is necessary to compute the Q
space of each neighbor of the repairing router reachable though the
LAN, i.e. to treat the pseudonode [RFC1195] as a node failure. This
is because the Q spaces of the neighbors of the pseudonode may be
disjoint requiring use of a neighbor specific PQ node. The reader is
referred to [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection] for further
information on the use of RLFA for node repairs.
The following notation is used:
o D_opt(a,b) is the shortest distance from node a to node b as
computed by the SPF.
o dest is the packet destination
o fail_intf is the failed interface (S-E in the example)
o fail_intf.remote_node is the node reachable over interface
fail_intf (node E in the example)
o intf.remote_node is the set of nodes reachable over interface intf
o root is the root of the SPF calculation
o self is the node carrying out the computation
o y is the node in the network under consideration
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
o y.pseudonode is true if y is a pseudonode
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Main Function
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// We have already computed the forward SPF from self to all nodes
// y in network and thus we know D_opt (self, y). This is needed
// for normal forwarding.
// However for completeness.
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(self)
// To extend P-space we compute the SPF at each neighbour except
// the neighbour that is reached via the link being protected.
// We will also need D_opt(fail_intf.remote_node,y) so compute
// that at the same time.
Compute_Neighbor_SPFs()
// Compute the set of nodes {P} reachable other than via the
// failed link
Compute_Extended_P_Space(fail_intf)
// Compute the set of nodes that can reach the node on the far
// side of the failed link without traversing the failed link.
Compute_Q_Space(fail_intf)
// Compute the set of candidate RLFA tunnel endpoints
Intersect_Extended_P_and_Q_Space()
// Make sure that we cannot get looping repairs when the
// failure is worse than expected.
if (guarantee_no_looping_on_worse_than_protected_failure)
Apply_Downstream_Constraint()
//
// End of Main Function
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Procedures
//
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// This computes the SPF from root, and stores the optimum
// distance from root to each node y
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(root)
Compute_Forward_SPF(root)
foreach node y in network
store D_opt(root,y)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// This computes the optimum distance from each neighbour (other
// than the neighbour reachable through the failed link) and
// every other node in the network
//
// Note that we compute this for all neighbours including the
// neighbour on the far side the failure. This is done on the
// expectation that more than on link will be protected, and
// that the results are stored for later use.
//
Compute_Neighbor_SPFs()
foreach interface intf in self
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(intf.remote_node)
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// The reverse SPF computes the cost from each remote node to
// root. This is achieved by running the normal SPF algorithm,
// but using the link cost in the direction from the next hop
// back towards root in place of the link cost in the direction
// away from root towards the next hop.
Compute_and_Store_Reverse_SPF(root)
Compute_Reverse_SPF(root)
foreach node y in network
store D_opt(y,root)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Calculate extended P-space
//
// Note the strictly less than operator is needed to
// avoid ECMP issues.
Compute_Extended_P_Space(fail_intf)
foreach node y in network
y.in_extended_P_space = false
// Extend P-space to the P-spaces of all reachable
// neighbours
foreach interface intf in self
// Exclude failed interface, noting that
// the node reachable via that interface may be
// reachable via another interface (parallel path)
if (intf != fail_intf)
foreach neighbor n in intf.remote_node
// Apply RFC5286 Inequality 1
if ( D_opt(n, y) <
D_opt(n,self) + D_opt(self, y))
y.in_extended_P_space = true
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Compute the nodes in Q-space
//
Compute_Q_Space(fail_intf)
// Compute the cost from every node the network to the
// node normally reachable across the failed link
Compute_and_Store_Reverse_SPF(fail_intf.remote_node)
// Compute the cost from every node the network to self
Compute_and_Store_Reverse_SPF(self)
foreach node y in network
if ( D_opt(y,fail_intf.remote_node) < D_opt(y,self) +
D_opt(self,fail_intf.remote_node) )
y.in_Q_space = true
else
y.in_Q_space = false
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Compute set of nodes in both extended P-space and in Q-space
Intersect_Extended_P_and_Q_Space()
foreach node y in network
if ( y.in_extended_P_space && y.in_Q_space &&
y.pseudonode == False)
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = true
else
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = false
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// A downstream route is one where the next hop is strictly
// closer to the destination. By sending the packet to a
// PQ node that is downstream, we know that if the PQ node
// detects a failure, it will not loop the packet back to self.
// This is useful when there are two failures, or a node has
// failed rather than a link.
Apply_Downstream_Constraint()
foreach node y in network
if (y.valid_tunnel_endpoint)
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(y)
if ((D_opt(y,dest) < D_opt(self,dest))
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = true
else
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = false
//
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
5.4. Interactions with IS-IS Overload, RFC6987, and Costed Out Links
Since normal link state routing takes into account the IS-IS overload
bit, [RFC6987], and costing out of links as described in Section 3.5
of [RFC5286], the forward SPFs performed by the PLR rooted at the
neighbors of the PLR also need to take this into account. A repair
tunnel path from a neighbor of the PLR to a repair tunnel endpoint
will generally avoid the nodes and links excluded by the IGP
overload/costing out rules. However, there are two situations where
this behavior may result in a repair path traversing a link or router
that should be excluded:
1. When the first hop on the repair tunnel path (from the PLR to a
direct neighbor) does not follow the IGP shortest path. In this
case, the PLR MUST NOT use a repair tunnel path whose first hop
is along a link whose cost or reverse cost is MaxLinkMetric (for
OSPF) or the maximum cost (for IS-IS) or, has the overload bit
set (for IS-IS).
2. The IS-IS overload bit and the mechanism of [RFC6987] only
prevent transit traffic from traversing a node. They do not
prevent traffic destined to a node. The per-neighbor forward
SPFs using the standard IGP overload rules will not prevent a PLR
from choosing a repair tunnel endpoint that is advertising a
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
desire to not carry transit traffic. Therefore, the PLR MUST NOT
use a repair tunnel endpoint with the IS-IS overload bit set, or
where all outgoing interfaces have the cost set to MaxLinkMetric
for OSPF.
6. Example Application of Remote LFAs
An example of a commonly deployed topology which is not fully
protected by LFAs alone is shown in Figure 3. PE1 and PE2 are
connected in the same site. P1 and P2 may be geographically
separated (inter-site). In order to guarantee the lowest latency
path from/to all other remote PEs, normally the shortest path follows
the geographical distance of the site locations. Therefore, to
ensure this, a lower IGP metric (5) is assigned between PE1 and PE2.
A high metric (1000) is set on the P-PE links to prevent the PEs
being used for transit traffic. The PEs are not individually dual-
homed in order to reduce costs.
This is a common topology in SP networks.
When a failure occurs on the link between PE1 and P1, PE1 does not
have an LFA for traffic reachable via P1. Similarly, by symmetry, if
the link between PE2 and P2 fails, PE2 does not have an LFA for
traffic reachable via P2.
Increasing the metric between PE1 and PE2 to allow the LFA would
impact the normal traffic performance by potentially increasing the
latency.
| 100 |
-P1---------P2-
\ /
1000 \ / 1000
PE1---PE2
5
Figure 3: Example SP topology
Clearly, full protection can be provided, using the techniques
described in this document, by PE1 choosing P2 as the remote LFA
repair target node, and PE2 choosing P1 as the remote LFA repair
target.
7. Node Failures
When the failure is a node failure rather than a point-to-point link
failure there is a danger that the RLFA repair will loop. This is
discussed in detail in [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels]. In summary the
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
problem is that two of more of E's neighbors each with E as the next
hop to some destination D may attempt to repair a packet addressed to
destination D via the other neighbor and then E, thus causing a loop
to form. A similar problem exists in the case of a shared risk link
group failure where the PLR for each failure attempts to repair via
the other failure. As will be noted from [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels],
this can rapidly become a complex problem to address.
There are a number of ways to minimize the probability of a loop
forming when a node failure occurs and there exists the possibility
that two of E's neighbors may form a mutual repair.
1. Detect when a packet has arrived on some interface I that is also
the interface used to reach the first hop on the RLFA path to the
remote LFA repair target, and drop the packet. This is useful in
the case of a ring topology.
2. Require that the path from the remote LFA repair target to
destination D never passes through E (including in the ECMP
case), i.e. only use node protecting paths in which the cost from
the remote LFA repair target to D is strictly less than the cost
from the remote LFA repair target to E plus the cost E to D.
3. Require that where the packet may pass through another neighbor
of E, that node is down stream (i.e. strictly closer to D than
the repairing node). This means that some neighbor of E (X) can
repair via some other neighbor of E (Y), but Y cannot repair via
X.
Case 1 accepts that loops may form and suppresses them by dropping
packets. Dropping packets may be considered less detrimental than
looping packets. This approach may also lead to dropping some
legitimate packets. Cases 2 and 3 above prevent the formation of a
loop, but at the expense of a reduced repair coverage and at the cost
of additional complexity in the algorithm to compute the repair path.
Alternatively one might choose to assume that the probability of a
node failure is sufficiently rare that the issue of looping RLFA
repairs can be ignored.
The probability of a node failure and the consequences of node
failure in any particular topology will depend on the node design,
the particular topology in use, and the strategy adopted under node
failure. It is recommended that a network operator perform an
analysis of the consequences and probability of node failure in their
network, and determine whether the incidence and consequence of
occurrence are acceptable.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
This topic is further discussed in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection].
8. Operation in an LDP environment
Where this technique is used in an MPLS network using LDP [RFC5036],
and S is a transit node, S will need to swap the top label in the
stack for the remote LFA repair target's (PQ's) label to the
destination, and to then push its own label for the remote LFA repair
target.
In the example Figure 2 S already has the first hop (A) label for the
remote LFA repair target (C) as a result of the ordinary operation of
LDP. To get the remote LFA repair target's label (C's label) for the
destination (D), S needs to establish a targeted LDP session with C.
The label stack for normal operation and RLFA operation is shown
below in Figure 4.
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| datalink | | datalink | | datalink |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| S's label for D | | E's label for D | | A's label for C |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Payload | | Payload | | C's label for D |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
X Y | Payload |
+-----------------+
Z
X = Normal label stack packet arriving at S
Y = Normal label stack packet leaving S
Z = RLFA label stack to D via C as the remote LFA repair target.
Figure 4
To establish an targeted LDP session with a candidate remote LFA
repair target node the repairing node (S) needs to know what IP
address that the remote LFA repair target is willing to use for
targeted LDP sessions. Ideally this is provided by the remote LFA
repair target advertising this address in the IGP in use. Which
address is used, how this is advertised in the IGP, and whether this
is a special IP address or an IP address also used for some other
purpose is out of scope for this document and must be specified in an
IGP specific RFC.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
In the absence of a protocol to learn the preferred IP address for
targeted LDP, an LSR should attempt a targeted LDP session with the
Router ID [RFC2328] [RFC5305] [RFC5340] [RFC6119]
[I-D.ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address], unless it is configured
otherwise.
No protection is available until the TLDP session has been
established and a label for the destination has been learned from the
remote LFA repair target. If for any reason the TLDP session cannot
be established, an implementation SHOULD advise the operator about
the protection setup issue through the network management system.
9. Analysis of Real World Topologies
This section gives the results of analysing a number of real world
service provider topologies collected between the end of 2012 and
early 2013
9.1. Topology Details
The figure below characterises each topology (topo) studied in terms
of :
o The number of nodes (# nodes) excluding pseudonodes.
o The number of bidirectional links ( # links) including parallel
links and links to and from pseudonodes.
o The number of node pairs that are connected by one or more links
(# pairs).
o The number of node pairs that are connected by more than one (i.e.
parallel) link ( # para).
o The number of links (excluding pseudonode links, which are by
definition asymmetric) that have asymmetric metrics (#asym).
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
+------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
| topo | # nodes | # links | # pairs | # para | # asym |
+------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
| 1 | 315 | 570 | 560 | 10 | 3 |
| 2 | 158 | 373 | 312 | 33 | 0 |
| 3 | 655 | 1768 | 1314 | 275 | 1195 |
| 4 | 1281 | 2326 | 2248 | 70 | 10 |
| 5 | 364 | 811 | 659 | 80 | 86 |
| 6 | 114 | 318 | 197 | 101 | 4 |
| 7 | 55 | 237 | 159 | 67 | 2 |
| 8 | 779 | 1848 | 1441 | 199 | 437 |
| 9 | 263 | 482 | 413 | 41 | 12 |
| 10 | 86 | 375 | 145 | 64 | 22 |
| 11 | 162 | 1083 | 351 | 201 | 49 |
| 12 | 380 | 1174 | 763 | 231 | 0 |
| 13 | 1051 | 2087 | 2037 | 48 | 64 |
| 14 | 92 | 291 | 204 | 64 | 2 |
+------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
9.2. LFA only
The figure below shows the percentage of protected destinations (%
prot) and percentage of guaranteed node protected destinations ( %
gtd N) for the set of topologies characterized in Section 9.1
achieved using only LFA repairs.
These statistics were generated by considering each node and then
considering each link to each next hop to each destination. The
percentage of such links across the entire network that are protected
against link failure was determined. This is the percentage of
protected destinations. If a link is protected against the failure
of the next hop node, this is considered guaranteed node protecting
(GNP) and percentage of guaranteed node protected destinations is
calculated using the same method used for calculating the link
protection coverage.
GNP is identical to Node-protecting as defined in [RFC5714] and does
not include the additional node protection coverage obtained by the
de facto node-protecting condition described in [RFC6571].
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
+------+--------+---------+
| topo | % prot | % gtd N |
+------+--------+---------+
| 1 | 78.5 | 36.9 |
| 2 | 97.3 | 52.4 |
| 3 | 99.3 | 58 |
| 4 | 83.1 | 63.1 |
| 5 | 99 | 59.1 |
| 6 | 86.4 | 21.4 |
| 7 | 93.9 | 35.4 |
| 8 | 95.3 | 48.1 |
| 9 | 82.2 | 49.5 |
| 10 | 98.5 | 14.9 |
| 11 | 99.6 | 24.8 |
| 12 | 99.5 | 62.4 |
| 13 | 92.4 | 51.6 |
| 14 | 99.3 | 48.6 |
+------+--------+---------+
9.3. RLFA
The figure below shows the percentage of protected destinations (%
prot) and % guaranteed node protected destinations ( % gtd N) for
RLFA protection in the topologies studies. In addition, it show the
percentage of destinations using an RLFA repair (% PQ) together with
the total number of unidirectional RLFA targeted LDP session
established (# PQ), the number of PQ sessions which would be required
for complete protection, but which could not be established because
there was no PQ node, i.e. the number of cases whether neither LFA or
RLFA protection was possible (no PQ). It also shows the 50 (p50), 90
(p90) and 100 (p100) percentiles for the number of individual LDP
sessions terminating at an individual node (whether used for TX, RX
or both).
For example, if there were LDP sessions required A->B, A->C, C->A,
C->D, these would be counted as 2, 1, 2, 1 at nodes A,B,C and D
respectively because:-
A has two sessions (to nodes B and C)
B has one session (to node A)
C has two sessions (to nodes A and D)
D has one session (to node D)
In this study, remote LFA is only used when necessary. i.e. when
there is at least one destination which is not reparable by a per
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
destination LFA, and a single remote LFA tunnel is used (if
available) to repair traffic to all such destinations. The remote
LFA repair target points are computed using extended P space and
choosing the PQ node which has the lowest metric cost from the
repairing node.
+------+--------+--------+------+------+-------+-----+-----+------+
| topo | % prot |% gtd N | % PQ | # PQ | no PQ | p50 | p90 | p100 |
+------+--------+--------+------+------+-------+-----+-----+------+
| 1 | 99.7 | 53.3 | 21.2 | 295 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 14 |
| 2 | 97.5 | 52.4 | 0.2 | 7 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 3 | 99.999 | 58.4 | 0.7 | 63 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 4 | 99 | 74.8 | 16 | 1424 | 54 | 1 | 3 | 23 |
| 5 | 99.5 | 59.5 | 0.5 | 151 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| 6 | 100 | 34.9 | 13.6 | 63 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| 7 | 99.999 | 40.6 | 6.1 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| 8 | 99.5 | 50.2 | 4.3 | 350 | 39 | 0 | 2 | 15 |
| 9 | 99.5 | 55 | 17.3 | 428 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 67 |
| 10 | 99.6 | 14.1 | 1 | 49 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| 11 | 99.9 | 24.9 | 0.3 | 85 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| 12 | 99.999 | 62.8 | 0.5 | 512 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 13 | 97.5 | 54.6 | 5.1 | 1188 | 95 | 0 | 2 | 27 |
| 14 | 100 | 48.6 | 0.7 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
+------+--------+--------+------+------+-------+-----+-----+------+
Another study[ISOCORE2010] confirms the significant coverage increase
provided by Remote LFAs.
9.4. Comparison of LFA an RLFA results
The table below provides a side by side comparison the LFA and the
remote LFA results. This shows a significant improvement in the
percentage of protected destinations and normally a modest
improvement in the percentage of guaranteed node protected
destinations.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
+------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
| topo | LFA | RLFA | LFA | RLFA |
| | % prot | %prot | % gtd N | % gtd N |
+------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
| 1 | 78.5 | 99.7 | 36.9 | 53.3 |
| 2 | 97.3 | 97.5 | 52.4 | 52.4 |
| 3 | 99.3 | 99.999 | 58 | 58.4 |
| 4 | 83.1 | 99 | 63.1 | 74.8 |
| 5 | 99 | 99.5 | 59.1 | 59.5 |
| 6 | 86.4 |100 | 21.4 | 34.9 |
| 7 | 93.9 | 99.999 | 35.4 | 40.6 |
| 8 | 95.3 | 99.5 | 48.1 | 50.2 |
| 9 | 82.2 | 99.5 | 49.5 | 55 |
| 10 | 98.5 | 99.6 | 14.9 | 14.1 |
| 11 | 99.6 | 99.9 | 24.8 | 24.9 |
| 12 | 99.5 | 99.999 | 62.4 | 62.8 |
| 13 | 92.4 | 97.5 | 51.6 | 54.6 |
| 14 | 99.3 |100 | 48.6 | 48.6 |
+------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
As shown in the table, remote LFA provides close to 100% prefix
protection against link failure in 11 of the 14 topologies studied,
and provides a significant improvement in two of the remaining three
cases. Note that in an MPLS network the tunnels to the PQ nodes are
always present as a property of an LDP-based deployment.
In the small number of cases where there is no intersection between
the (extended)P-space and the Q-space, a number of solutions to
providing a suitable path between such disjoint regions in the
network have been discussed in the working group. For example an
explicitly routed LSP between P and Q might be set up using RSVP-TE
or using Segment Routing [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing]. Such
extended repair methods are outside the scope of this document.
10. Management and Operational Considerations
The management of LFA and remote LFA is the subject of ongoing work
withing the IETF [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability] to which the
reader is referred. Management considerations may lead to a
preference for the use of a remote LFA over an available LFA. This
preference is a matter for the network operator, and not a matter of
protocol correctness.
When the network re-converges, microloops [RFC5715] can form due to
transient inconsistencies in the forwarding tables of different
routers. If it is determined that microloops are a significant issue
in the deployment, then a suitable loop free convergence methods such
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
as one of those described in [RFC5715], [RFC6976], or
[I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay] should be implemented.
11. Historical Note
The basic concepts behind Remote LFA were invented in 2002 and were
later included in [I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels], submitted in 2004.
[I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels], targeted a 100% protection coverage and
hence included additional mechanisms on top of the Remote LFA
concept. The addition of these mechanisms made the proposal very
complex and computationally intensive and it was therefore not
pursued as a working group item.
As explained in [RFC6571], the purpose of the LFA FRR technology is
not to provide coverage at any cost. A solution for this already
exists with MPLS TE FRR. MPLS TE FRR is a mature technology which is
able to provide protection in any topology thanks to the explicit
routing capability of MPLS TE.
The purpose of LFA FRR technology is to provide for a simple FRR
solution when such a solution is possible. The first step along this
simplicity approach was "local" LFA [RFC5286]. This specification of
"Remote LFA" is a natural second step.
12. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations that arise from this architectural
description of IPFRR. The RFC Editor may remove this section on
publication.
13. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC5286] also apply.
Targeted LDP sessions and MPLS tunnels are normal features of an MPLS
network and their use in this application raises no additional
security concerns.
IP repair tunnel endpoints (where used) SHOULD be assigned from a set
of addresses that are not reachable from outside the routing domain.
This would prevent their use as an attack vector.
Other than OAM traffic, used to verify the correct operation of a
repair tunnel, only traffic that is being protected as a result of a
link failure is placed a repair tunnel. The repair tunnel MUST NOT
be advertised by the routing protocol as a link that may be used to
carry normal user traffic, or routing protocol traffic.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
14. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Levente Csikor and Chris Bowers for their
contribution to the cost based algorithm text. The authors thank
Alia Atlas, Ross Callon, Stephane Litkowski, Bharath R, Pushpasis
Sarkar and Adrian Farrel for their review of this document.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
5714, January 2010.
15.2. Informative References
[I-D.bryant-ipfrr-tunnels]
Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "IP
Fast Reroute using tunnels", draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-03
(work in progress), November 2007.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring-
segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-routable-ip-address]
Xu, X., Chunduri, U., and M. Bhatia, "Carrying Routable IP
Addresses in OSPF RI LSA", draft-ietf-ospf-routable-ip-
address-01 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational management of
Loop Free Alternates", draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-
manageability-07 (work in progress), January 2015.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski,
S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and
Manageability", draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-01
(work in progress), December 2014.
[I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and P.
Francois, "Microloop prevention by introducing a local
convergence delay", draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-03
(work in progress), February 2014.
[ISOCORE2010]
So, N., Lin, T., and C. Chen, "LFA (Loop Free Alternates)
Case Studies in Verizon's LDP Network", 2010.
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.
[RFC1701] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701, October 1994.
[RFC1853] Simpson, W., "IP in IP Tunneling", RFC 1853, October 1995.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[RFC5715] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
Convergence", RFC 5715, January 2010.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, February 2011.
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
[RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
Networks", RFC 6571, June 2012.
[RFC6976] Shand, M., Bryant, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C.,
Francois, P., and O. Bonaventure, "Framework for Loop-Free
Convergence Using the Ordered Forwarding Information Base
(oFIB) Approach", RFC 6976, July 2013.
[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
September 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
250, Longwater, Green Park,
Reading RG2 6GB, UK
UK
Email: stbryant@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
De Kleetlaan 6a
1831 Diegem
Belgium
Email: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com
Mike Shand
Independent Contributor
Email: imc.shand@gmail.com
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Remote LFA FRR January 2015
Ning So
Vinci Systems
Email: ning.so@vinci-systems.com
Bryant, et al. Expires August 3, 2015 [Page 30]
