draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-10.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-11.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 16 skipping to change at page 1, line 16
Expires: December 27, 2015 C. Filsfils Expires: December 27, 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
June 25, 2015 June 25, 2015
Operational management of Loop Free Alternates Operational management of Loop Free Alternates
draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-10 draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-11
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 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 7, line 32
Figure 3 Figure 3
Px routers are P routers. P1-P2 and P3-P4 links are 1G links. All Px routers are P routers. P1-P2 and P3-P4 links are 1G links. All
others inter Px links are 10G links. others inter Px links are 10G links.
In the figure above, let us consider the failure of link P1-P3. For In the figure above, let us consider the failure of link P1-P3. For
destination PE3, P3 has two possible alternates: destination PE3, P3 has two possible alternates:
o P4, which is node-protecting o P4, which is node-protecting
o P5, which is link-protecting o R5, which is link-protecting
P4 is chosen as best LFA due to its better protection type. However, P4 is chosen as best LFA due to its better protection type. However,
it may not be desirable to use P4 for bandwidth capacity reason. A it may not be desirable to use P4 for bandwidth capacity reason. A
service provider may prefer to use high bandwidth links as prefered service provider may prefer to use high bandwidth links as prefered
LFA. In this example, prefering shortest path over protection type LFA. In this example, prefering shortest path over protection type
may achieve the expected behavior, but in cases where metric are not may achieve the expected behavior, but in cases where metric are not
reflecting bandwidth, it would not work and some other criteria would reflecting bandwidth, it would not work and some other criteria would
need to be involved when selecting the best LFA. need to be involved when selecting the best LFA.
3.4. Case 4: No-transit LFA computing node 3.4. Case 4: No-transit LFA computing node
skipping to change at page 27, line 27 skipping to change at page 27, line 27
10. Contributors 10. Contributors
Significant contributions were made by Pierre Francois, Hannes Significant contributions were made by Pierre Francois, Hannes
Gredler, Chris Bowers, Jeff Tantsura, Uma Chunduri, Acee Lindem and Gredler, Chris Bowers, Jeff Tantsura, Uma Chunduri, Acee Lindem and
Mustapha Aissaoui which the authors would like to acknowledge. Mustapha Aissaoui which the authors would like to acknowledge.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S.,
Decraene, B., Li, Z., Aries, E., Rodriguez, R., and H.
Raghuveer, "Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS",
draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-02 (work in progress), June
2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag]
Hegde, S., Raghuveer, H., Gredler, H., Shakir, R.,
Smirnov, A., Li, Z., and B. Decraene, "Advertising per-
node administrative tags in OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-node-
admin-tag-02 (work in progress), June 2015.
[ISO10589] [ISO10589]
"Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain "Intermediate system to Intermediate system intra-domain
routing information exchange protocol for use in routing information exchange protocol for use in
conjunction with the protocol for providing the conjunction with the protocol for providing the
connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473), ISO/IEC
10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002. 10589:2002, Second Edition.", Nov 2002.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3137] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D. [RFC3137] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137, McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
June 2001. June 2001.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support [RFC4203] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
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.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support [RFC5307] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "IS-IS Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)",
RFC 5307, October 2008. RFC 5307, October 2008.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B., [RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Shand, M., Decraene, B.,
Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP) Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
skipping to change at page 28, line 33 skipping to change at page 29, line 5
RFC 7490, April 2015. RFC 7490, April 2015.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa] [I-D.francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa]
Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., and B. Decraene, Francois, P., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., and B. Decraene,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing", "Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 (work in draft-francois-segment-routing-ti-lfa-00 (work in
progress), November 2013. progress), November 2013.
[I-D.ietf-isis-node-admin-tag]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S.,
Decraene, B., Li, Z., Aries, E., Rodriguez, R., and H.
Raghuveer, "Advertising Per-node Admin Tags in IS-IS",
draft-ietf-isis-node-admin-tag-02 (work in progress), June
2015.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag]
Hegde, S., Raghuveer, H., Gredler, H., Shakir, R.,
Smirnov, A., Li, Z., and B. Decraene, "Advertising per-
node administrative tags in OSPF", draft-ietf-ospf-node-
admin-tag-02 (work in progress), June 2015.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection] [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski, Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski,
S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and
Manageability", draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-02 Manageability", draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-02
(work in progress), June 2015. (work in progress), June 2015.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stephane Litkowski (editor) Stephane Litkowski (editor)
Orange Orange
Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Bruno Decraene Bruno Decraene
Orange Orange
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 22 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/