Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rtgwg WG)
Authors Shraddha Hegde  , Chris Bowers  , Hannes Gredler  , Stephane Litkowski 
Last updated 2015-10-06
Replaces draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to "Jeff Tantsura" <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
Routing Area Working Group                                P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                  S. Hegde
Intended status: Standards Track                               C. Bowers
Expires: April 8, 2016                            Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                            Unaffiliated
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                         October 6, 2015

              Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
                draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03

Abstract

   The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
   [RFC7490] specification guarantees only link-protection.  The
   resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not
   guarantee node-protection for all destinations being protected by it.

   This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node
   provides node-protection for a specific destination or not.  The
   document also shows how the same procedure can be utilised for
   collection of complete characteristics for alternate paths.
   Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is
   precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not
   fitting constraints.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Sarkar, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    RLFA Node-Protection and Manageabilty     October 2015

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Node Protection with Remote-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Few Additional Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       2.2.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.3.  Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.4.  Link-Protecting PQ Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.5.  Candidate Node-Protecting PQ Space  . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Computing Node-protecting R-LFA Path  . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.3.1.  Computing Candidate Node-protecting PQ-Nodes for
               Primary nexthops  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.3.2.  Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to
               destinations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.3.  Limiting extra computational overhead . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  Manageabilty of Remote-LFA Alternate Paths  . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.1.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  The Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
Show full document text