Micro-loop avoidance using SPRING
draft-hegde-rtgwg-microloop-avoidance-using-spring-02
| The information below is for an old version of the document | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
| Authors | Shraddha Hegde , Pushpasis Sarkar | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-08 (latest revision 2016-07-07) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hegde-rtgwg-microloop-avoidance-using-spring-02.txt
Abstract
When there is a change in network topology either due to a link going down or due to a new link addition, all the nodes in the network need to get the complete view of the network and re-compute the routes. There will generally be a small time window when the forwarding state of each of the nodes is not synchronized. This can result in transient loops in the network, leading to dropped traffic due to over-subscription of links. Micro-looping is generally more harmful than simply dropping traffic on failed links, because it can cause control traffic to be dropped on an otherwise healthy link involved in micro-loop. This can lead to cascading adjacency failures or network meltdown.
Authors
Shraddha Hegde
(shraddha@juniper.net)
Pushpasis Sarkar
(pushpasis.ietf@gmail.com)
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)