@techreport{ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-10,
    number =    {draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-10},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover/10/},
    author =    {Greg Shepherd and Zheng Zhang and Yisong Liu and Ying Cheng and Gyan Mishra},
    title =     {{Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover}},
    pagetotal = 15,
    year =      2026,
    month =     apr,
    day =       26,
    abstract =  {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.},
}