draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-06.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-07.txt 
Routing Area Working Group S. Litkowski Routing Area Working Group S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft B. Decraene Internet-Draft B. Decraene
Intended status: Standards Track Orange Intended status: Standards Track Orange
Expires: July 10, 2015 C. Filsfils Expires: July 17, 2015 C. Filsfils
K. Raza K. Raza
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
M. Horneffer M. Horneffer
Deutsche Telekom Deutsche Telekom
P. Sarkar P. Sarkar
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
January 6, 2015 January 13, 2015
Operational management of Loop Free Alternates Operational management of Loop Free Alternates
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-06 draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-07
Abstract Abstract
Loop Free Alternates (LFA), as defined in RFC 5286 is an IP Fast Loop Free Alternates (LFA), as defined in RFC 5286 is an IP Fast
ReRoute (IP FRR) mechanism enabling traffic protection for IP traffic ReRoute (IP FRR) mechanism enabling traffic protection for IP traffic
(and MPLS LDP traffic by extension). Following first deployment (and MPLS LDP traffic by extension). Following first deployment
experiences, this document provides operational feedback on LFA, experiences, this document provides operational feedback on LFA,
highlights some limitations, and proposes a set of refinements to highlights some limitations, and proposes a set of refinements to
address those limitations. It also proposes required management address those limitations. It also proposes required management
specifications. specifications.
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 10, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 17, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 46
5.2.2. Mandatory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.2. Mandatory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.3. Enhanced criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2.3. Enhanced criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.4. Retrieving alternate path attributes . . . . . . . . 11 5.2.4. Retrieving alternate path attributes . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.5. ECMP LFAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2.5. ECMP LFAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.6. SRLG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.6. SRLG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.7. Link coloring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.7. Link coloring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2.8. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.2.8. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.9. Alternate preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2.9. Alternate preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Operational aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. Operational aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.1. ISIS overload bit on LFA computing node . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1. ISIS overload bit on LFA computing node . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2. Manual triggering of FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.2. Manual triggering of FRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.3. Required local information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.3. Required local information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4. Coverage monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4. Coverage monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.5. LFA and network planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.5. LFA and network planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Following the first deployments of Loop Free Alternates (LFA), this Following the first deployments of Loop Free Alternates (LFA), this
document provides feedback to the community about the management of document provides feedback to the community about the management of
LFA. LFA.
Section 2 provides real uses cases illustrating some limitations Section 2 provides real uses cases illustrating some limitations
skipping to change at page 16, line 33 skipping to change at page 16, line 33
some specific alternates (see Section 5.2.3), an implementation : some specific alternates (see Section 5.2.3), an implementation :
o SHOULD be able to give a preference to specific alternate. o SHOULD be able to give a preference to specific alternate.
o SHOULD be able to give a preference to a group of alternate. o SHOULD be able to give a preference to a group of alternate.
o SHOULD be able to exclude a group of alternate. o SHOULD be able to exclude a group of alternate.
A specific alternate may be identified by its interface, IP address A specific alternate may be identified by its interface, IP address
or router ID and group of alternates may be identified by a marker or router ID and group of alternates may be identified by a marker
(tag). (tag) (for example, in case of ISIS protocol
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] can be used)
Consider the following network: Consider the following network:
PE3 PE3
| |
| |
PE2 PE2
| +---- P4 | +---- P4
| / | /
PE1 ---- P1 -------- P2 PE1 ---- P1 -------- P2
skipping to change at page 21, line 8 skipping to change at page 21, line 30
RFC 4203, October 2005. RFC 4203, October 2005.
[RFC4205] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Intermediate System to [RFC4205] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Intermediate System to
Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of Intermediate System (IS-IS) Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC
4205, October 2005. 4205, October 2005.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast [RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008. Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 5307, October 2008.
[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.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag] [I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag]
psarkar@juniper.net, p., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Li, Z., Aries, E., Rodriguez, Decraene, B., Li, Z., Aries, E., Rodriguez, R., and H.
R., and H. Raghuveer, "Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in Raghuveer, "Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS",
IS-IS", draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-00 (work in draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-00 (work in progress),
progress), December 2014. December 2014.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]
Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-09 (work So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate Fast Re-Route", draft-
in progress), December 2014. ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-10 (work in progress), January 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection]
psarkar@juniper.net, p., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski,
C., Litkowski, S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and
Protection and Manageability", draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node- Manageability", draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-01
protection-01 (work in progress), December 2014. (work in progress), December 2014.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC3906] Shen, N. and H. Smit, "Calculating Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) Routes Over Traffic Engineering Tunnels",
RFC 3906, October 2004.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
5714, January 2010.
[RFC5715] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
Convergence", RFC 5715, January 2010.
[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.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stephane Litkowski Stephane Litkowski
Orange Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
49 lines changed or deleted 33 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/