<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-10">
   <front>
      <title>Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover</title>
      <author initials="G." surname="Shepherd" fullname="Greg Shepherd">
         <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="Z." surname="Zhang" fullname="Zheng Zhang">
         <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="Y." surname="Liu" fullname="Yisong Liu">
         <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="Y." surname="Cheng" fullname="Ying Cheng">
         <organization>China Unicom</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="G. S." surname="Mishra" fullname="Gyan Mishra">
         <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="April" day="26" year="2026" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   This document is intended to serve as a guide for multicast network
   operators of various replication technologies to evaluate the options
   and tradeoffs in deploying redundant ingress router failover.
   Section 5 of RFC9026 details the hot root standby solution for MVPN
   networks.  Here we attempt to extend the discussion to cover
   additional multicast deployment solutions beyond MVPNs.  This
   document compares cold, warm, and hot standby modes, listing their
   advantages, limitations and deployment considerations to help
   identify the appropriate solution for any network.

	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-10" />
   
</reference>
