LDP IGP Synchronization
draft-ietf-mpls-igp-sync-01
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(mpls WG)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Markus Jork | ||
| Last updated | 2008-03-24 (Latest revision 2008-02-25) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-igp-sync | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
In certain networks there is a dependency on edge-to-edge LSPs setup by LDP, e.g. networks that are used for MPLS VPN applications. For such applications it is not possible to rely on IP forwarding if the MPLS LSP is not operating appropriately. Blackholing of labeled traffic can occur in situations where the IGP is operational on a link but LDP is not operational on that link. While the link could still be used for IP forwarding, it is not useful for traffic with packets carrying a label stack of more than one label or when the IP address carried in the packet is out of the RFC1918 space. This document describes a mechanism to avoid traffic loss due to this condition without introducing any protocol changes.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)