Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-11
| The information below is for an old version of the document | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (rtgwg WG) | |
| Authors | Pushpasis Sarkar , Shraddha Hegde , Chris Bowers , Hannes Gredler , Stephane Litkowski | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-19 | ||
| Replaces | draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jon Mitchell | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2016-11-17) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation::AD Followup | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date |
Needs 7 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass. |
||
| Responsible AD | Alia Atlas | ||
| Send notices to | "Jon Mitchell" <jrmitche@puck.nether.net> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
Routing Area Working Group P. Sarkar, Ed.
Internet-Draft Individual Contributor
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde
Expires: July 24, 2017 C. Bowers
Juniper Networks, Inc.
H. Gredler
RtBrick, Inc.
S. Litkowski
Orange
January 20, 2017
Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-11
Abstract
The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
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 an extension to the Remote Loop-Free based IP
fast reroute mechanisms described in [RFC7490], that 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 utilized 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/.
Sarkar, et al. Expires July 24, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft R-LFA Node-Protection and Manageability January 2017
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
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 July 24, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
1.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Node Protection with Remote-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Additional Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.5. Candidate Node-Protecting PQ Space . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.6. Cost-Based Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.6.1. Link-Protecting Extended P-Space . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.6.2. Node-Protecting Extended P-Space . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.6.3. Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3. Computing Node-protecting R-LFA Path . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1. Computing Candidate Node-protecting PQ-Nodes for
Primary nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2. Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to
destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.3. Computing Node-Protecting R-LFA Paths for
Destinations with ECMP primary nexthop nodes . . . . 13
2.3.4. Limiting extra computational overhead . . . . . . . . 17
Show full document text