<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-05">
   <front>
      <title>Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability</title>
      <author initials="H." surname="Gredler" fullname="Hannes Gredler">
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="S." surname="Hegde" fullname="Shraddha Hegde">
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="C." surname="Bowers" fullname="Chris Bowers">
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="S." surname="Litkowski" fullname="Stephane Litkowski">
         <organization>Orange</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="H." surname="Raghuveer" fullname="Harish Raghuveer">
         </author>
      <date month="June" day="24" year="2014" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] specification gaurantees only link-
   protection.  The resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-
   nodes), may not gaurantee 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.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-05" />
   
</reference>
