SRv6 Midpoint Protection
draft-chen-rtgwg-srv6-midpoint-protection-03
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Huanan Chen , Zhibo Hu, Huaimo Chen , Xuesong Geng | ||
| Last updated | 2021-04-18 (Latest revision 2020-10-15) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The current local repair mechanism, e.g., TI-LFA, allows local repair actions on the direct neighbors of the failed node to temporarily route traffic to the destination. This mechanism could not work properly when the failure happens in the destination point or the link connected to the destination. In SRv6 TE, the IPv6 destination address in the outer IPv6 header could be the dedicated endpoint of the TE path rather than the destination of the TE path. When the endpoint fails, local repair couldn't work on the direct neighbor of the failed endpoint either. This document defines midpoint protection, which enables the direct neighbor of the failed endpoint to do the function of the endpoint, replace the IPv6 destination address to the other endpoint, and choose the next hop based on the new destination address.
Authors
Huanan Chen
Zhibo Hu
Huaimo Chen
Xuesong Geng
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)