Skip to main content

IP Fast Reroute Framework
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-13

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2019-06-05
13 Alvaro Retana Downref to RFC 5714 approved by Last Call for draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-11
2015-10-14
13 (System) Notify list changed from rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
13 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Record position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
13 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2010-01-19
13 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-19
13 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5714' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-01-14
13 (System) RFC published
2009-10-26
13 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-10-26
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2009-10-26
13 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-10-26
13 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-10-26
13 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2009-10-26
13 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-10-23
13 Ross Callon State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ross Callon
2009-10-23
13 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2009-10-23
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-10-23
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-13.txt
2009-10-12
13 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2009-10-09
13 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08
2009-10-08
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Sandra Murphy.
2009-10-08
13 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-10-08
13 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-10-08
13 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-10-08
13 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
Section 1

The definition of "E" uses the term "primary next-hop neighbor" but your
terminology defines the term "primary neighbor".

---

Section 1 …
[Ballot comment]
Section 1

The definition of "E" uses the term "primary next-hop neighbor" but your
terminology defines the term "primary neighbor".

---

Section 1
Upstream forwarding loop defintion
s/none of which are/none of which is/

---

It is a slight editorial concern that some sections have multiple
numbered bullet lists using the same ordinals. Could you consider using
letters for second lists so there is no confusion between lists?
2009-10-08
13 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
I like this document and I only have a small Discuss.

Section 1
  Distance_opt(A,B)  The distance of the shortest path from A …
[Ballot discuss]
I like this document and I only have a small Discuss.

Section 1
  Distance_opt(A,B)  The distance of the shortest path from A to B.

We seem to lack a definition of "distance". I know this is used in RFC
2328
, but it is (IMHO) too close to implying hop-count, which is not
what you mean. Maybe "cost" is a better word, but you would still do
well to include a definition such as:

  cost    The sum of the link metrics for the links in a path.
2009-10-08
13 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-10-07
13 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-10-07
13 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-10-07
13 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-10-07
13 Lars Eggert
[Ballot comment]
Section 2., paragraph 2:
>    Recent advances in routers have reduced this interval to under a
>    second for carefully configured …
[Ballot comment]
Section 2., paragraph 2:
>    Recent advances in routers have reduced this interval to under a
>    second for carefully configured networks using link state IGPs.
>    However, new Internet services are emerging which may be sensitive to
>    periods of traffic loss which are orders of magnitude shorter than
>    this.

  It'd be fair to point out that although fast reroute can significantly
  improve behavior under failures for such applications, it is no
  panacea. When the characteristics of the backup path are different
  from the primary path (less available capacity, but also even longer
  delay), some of those services will still experience some issues.
2009-10-07
13 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4.1., paragraph 0:
>  4.1.  Mechanisms for fast failure detection

  DISCUSS: Some of these fast failure detection techniques (the ones
  …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4.1., paragraph 0:
>  4.1.  Mechanisms for fast failure detection

  DISCUSS: Some of these fast failure detection techniques (the ones
  based on observing packet loss) can lead to false positives when used
  with very aggressive detection intervals, because losses caused by
  transient congestion appear as a failure. I believe it's important to
  point out somewhere in this document (maybe in this section) that any
  technique used for fast failure detection MUST avoid being confused by
  transient congestion. Otherwise, route flapping can occur, with all
  the bad effects that has on transport connections & the network in
  general.
2009-10-07
13 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-10-06
13 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-10-06
13 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-10-06
13 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
How does section 4.2.2 explain the percentages given for various failure modes in section 4.2?  I see how section 4.2.2 describes how an …
[Ballot comment]
How does section 4.2.2 explain the percentages given for various failure modes in section 4.2?  I see how section 4.2.2 describes how an analysis could be performed, but I don't see the specific analysis that gives the percentages in section 4.2.

Section 4.3 piqued my curiosity; it would be useful (but certainly not necessary) to say more:

4.3.  Local Area Networks

  Protection against partial or complete failure of LANs is more
  complex than the point to point case.  In general there is a trade-
  off between the simplicity of the repair and the ability to provide
  complete and optimal repair coverage.
2009-09-29
13 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon
2009-09-29
13 Ross Callon Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon
2009-09-29
13 Ross Callon Created "Approve" ballot
2009-09-29
13 Ross Callon Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-10-08 by Ross Callon
2009-09-29
13 Ross Callon State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon
2009-09-18
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-12.txt
2009-09-04
13 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2009-08-31
13 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2009-08-22
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2009-08-22
13 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2009-08-21
13 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2009-08-21
13 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2009-08-21
13 Ross Callon Last Call was requested by Ross Callon
2009-08-21
13 Ross Callon State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon
2009-08-21
13 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2009-08-21
13 (System) Last call text was added
2009-08-21
13 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2009-06-29
13 Ross Callon
PROTO writeup by John Scudder:

draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework

    (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document …
PROTO writeup by John Scudder:

draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework

    (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

John Scudder.  Yes.

    (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

The document has been published for some time and has received substantive comments which indicates to me that at least some WG members have read it carefully.

    (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

No.

    (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

I generally take a somewhat skeptical view of framework documents but this one seems worthwhile and I think it should be published.

    (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

I would describe the consensus as "silence gives assent".  Since this is a framework and a very mature one at that, it's somewhat difficult to generate enthusiasm.

    (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

    (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits? (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

IDNits throws a warning for pre-RFC5378.  I don't think there's a problem and have verified with the authors that they don't either.

    (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative? Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state? If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Refs are fine.

    (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document? If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This is fine too.

    (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

N/A.

    (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:
          Technical Summary
              Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
              and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
              an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
              or introduction.
          Working Group Summary
              Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
              example, was there controversy about particular points or
              were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
              rough?
          Document Quality
              Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
              significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
              implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
              merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
              e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
              conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
              there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
              what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
              review, on what date was the request posted?

Technical Summary
    This document provides a framework for the development of IP fast-
    reroute mechanisms which provide protection against link or router
    failure by invoking locally determined repair paths.  Unlike MPLS
    fast-reroute, the mechanisms are applicable to a network employing
    conventional IP routing and forwarding.

Working Group Summary
    This document has been evolving since 2004 and reflects a good
    summary of the approaches explored by the WG.  The document is
    non-controversial.

Document Quality
    The document is a framework intended as an Informational RFC and does
    not specify a protocol.  It has received reasonable review from WG
    members.  The WG also has implementation experience with some of the
    repair techniques mentioned in the framework, notably loop-free
    alternates (RFC5286).
2009-06-29
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-11.txt
2009-06-10
13 Ross Callon Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested
2009-02-27
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-10.txt
2008-10-30
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-09.txt
2008-08-28
13 (System) Document has expired
2008-02-25
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-08.txt
2007-07-05
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-07.txt
2006-10-20
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-06.txt
2006-03-03
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-05.txt
2005-10-21
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-04.txt
2005-06-21
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-03.txt
2004-10-28
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-02.txt
2004-06-23
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-01.txt
2004-06-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-00.txt