Basic Specification for IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-12
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2008-07-03
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2008-07-03
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2008-07-03
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2008-07-03
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2008-07-03
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2008-07-03
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer by Amy Vezza |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot comment] One the whole, a fine document. However, please consider the following comment from Hannes Gredler: i am a bit concerned about the notion … [Ballot comment] One the whole, a fine document. However, please consider the following comment from Hannes Gredler: i am a bit concerned about the notion of 'destination' throughout the document. the document leaves the taste that you can get away by computing the distance to 'destination' node and compare that with your neighbors destination nodal distance and thats all you need for determining loop free paths. as always the devil is in the details: the trouble starts with multi-homed prefixes e.g. direct routes getting advertised into the IGP from different routers. IMO its not that simple just comparing nodal cost, what you need to do is to compare the cost of the prefix in order to make sure that a network path is loop-free. consider the following example: -topology +---+ | S | +---+ 5 / \ 4 +---+ +---+ | E | | N | +---+ +---+ |2 |2 +---+ +---+ | B | | C | +---+ +---+ 2 \ / 10 +---+ | D | +---+ -the primary path from (S,D) is via E -the backup path (via N) fulfills the LFA rule dist_opt(N,D) < dist_opt(S,D) + dist_opt(N,S) 12 < 9 + 4 so far so good - now lets assume that C & D advertise a 10.0.0.0/30 link address. C does advertise the direct route with a cost of 100 and D advertises it with a cost of 80. if the link between (S,E) fails then we have a loop as N loops back traffic destined to 10.0.0.0/30 to S. --- i'd like to see a caveat at the very beginning that the suggested selection procedure (3.6) either does violate correctness (if implemented with a nodal notion of 'destination'), or a clarification that LFA has to be implemented with a prefix notion of 'destination'. /hannes |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Mark Townsley |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2008-06-19
|
12 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
2008-06-18
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2008-06-06
|
12 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2008-06-05 |
2008-06-03
|
12 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2008-06-03
|
12 | Ron Bonica | State Changes to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation by Ron Bonica |
2008-06-03
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2008-05-15
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Joseph Salowey. |
2008-05-15
|
12 | David Ward | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by David Ward |
2008-05-15
|
12 | David Ward | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-06-05 by David Ward |
2008-05-15
|
12 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Ward |
2008-05-15
|
12 | David Ward | Ballot has been issued by David Ward |
2008-05-15
|
12 | David Ward | Created "Approve" ballot |
2008-05-13
|
12 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2008-05-08
|
12 | Amanda Baber | IANA Last Call comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
2008-05-02
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2008-05-02
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Joseph Salowey |
2008-04-29
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2008-04-29
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2008-04-29
|
12 | David Ward | Last Call was requested by David Ward |
2008-04-29
|
12 | David Ward | State Changes to Last Call Requested from In Last Call by David Ward |
2008-04-29
|
12 | David Ward | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by David Ward |
2008-04-29
|
12 | David Ward | Last Call was requested by David Ward |
2008-04-29
|
12 | David Ward | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by David Ward |
2008-04-29
|
12 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2008-04-29
|
12 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2008-04-29
|
12 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2008-03-27
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-12.txt |
2008-03-26
|
12 | Ross Callon | Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested |
2008-02-25
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-11.txt |
2007-11-16
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-10.txt |
2007-09-21
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-09.txt |
2007-09-06
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-08.txt |
2007-07-09
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-07.txt |
2007-03-05
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-06.txt |
2006-03-06
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-05.txt |
2005-07-18
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-04.txt |
2005-02-21
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-03.txt |
2005-01-24
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt |
2004-10-04
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-01.txt |
2004-09-08
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-00.txt |