Link State protocols SPF trigger and delay algorithm impact on IGP micro-loops
draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rtgwg WG)
Last updated 2015-07-19 (latest revision 2015-06-23)
Replaces draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
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 (None)
Routing Area Working Group                                  S. Litkowski
Internet-Draft                                   Orange Business Service
Intended status: Standards Track                             B. Decraene
Expires: December 25, 2015                                        Orange
                                                            M. Horneffer
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                           June 23, 2015

   Link State protocols SPF trigger and delay algorithm impact on IGP
                              micro-loops
               draft-ietf-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement-01

Abstract

   A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop that may occur transiently
   among two or more routers in a hop-by-hop packet forwarding paradigm.

   In this document, we are trying to analyze the impact of using
   different Link State IGP implementations in a single network in
   regards of micro-loops.  The analysis is focused on the SPF triggers
   and SPF delay algorithm.

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].

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
   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 December 25, 2015.

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  SPF trigger strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  SPF delay strategies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.1.  Two step SPF delay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Exponential backoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Mixing strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Proposed work items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   Link State IGP protocols are based on a topology database on which a
   SPF (Shortest Path First) algorithm like Dijkstra is implemented to
   find the optimal routing paths.

   Specifications like IS-IS ([RFC1195]) propose some optimization of
   the route computation (See Appendix C.1) but not all the
   implementations are following those not mandatory optimizations.

   We will call SPF trigger, the events that would lead to a new SPF
   computation based on the topology.

   Link State IGP protocols, like OSPF ([RFC2328]) and IS-IS
   ([RFC1195]), are using plenty of timers to control the router

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   behavior in case of churn : SPF delay, PRC delay, LSP generation
   delay, LSP flooding delay, LSP retransmission interval ...

   Some of those timers are standardized in protocol specification, some
   are not especially the SPF computation related timers.

   For non standardized timers, implementations are free to implement it
   in any way.  For some standardized timer, we can also see that rather
   than using static configurable values for such timer ,
   implementations may offer dynamically adjusted timers to help
   controlling the churn.

   We will call SPF delay, the timer that exists in most implementations
   that specifies the required delay before running SPF computation
   after a SPF trigger is received.

   A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop that may occur transiently
   among two or more routers in a hop-by-hop packet forwarding paradigm.
   We can observe that these micro-loops are formed when two routers do
   not update their Forwarding Information Base (FIB) for a certain
   prefix at the same time.  The micro-loop phenomenon is described in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis].

   Some micro-loop mitigation techniques have been defined by IETF (e.g.
   [RFC6976], [I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay]) but are not implemented
   due to complexity or are not providing a complete mitigation.

   In multi vendor networks, using different implementations of a link
   state protocol may favor micro-loops creation during convergence time
   due to discrepancies of timers.  Service Providers are already aware
   to use similar timers for all the network as best practice, but
   sometimes it is not possible due to limitation of implementations.

   This document will present why it sounds important for service
   provider to have consistent implementations of Link State protocols
   across vendors.  We are particularly analyzing the impact of using
   different Link State IGP implementations in a single network in
   regards of micro-loops.  The analysis is focused on the SPF triggers
   and SPF delay algorithm in a first step.

   This document is only stating the problem, and defining some work
   items but its not intended to provide a solution.

2.  Problem statement

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

                                      A ---- B
                                      |      |
                                   10 |      | 10
                                      |      |
                                      C ---- D
                                      |  2   |
                                      Px     Px

                                           Figure 1

   In the figure above, A uses primarily the AC link to reach C.  When
   the AC link fails, IGP convergence occurs.  If A converges before B,
   A will forward traffic to C through B, but as B as not converged yet,
   B will loop back traffic to A, leading to a micro-loop.

   The micro-loop appears due to the asynchronous convergence of nodes
   in a network when a event occurs.

   Multiple factors (and combination of these factors) may increase the
   probability for a micro-loop to appear :

   o  delay of failure notification : the more B is advised of the
      failure later than A, the more a micro-loop may appear.

   o  SPF delay : most of the implementations supports a delay for the
      SPF computation to try to catch as many events as possible.  If A
      uses a SPF delay timer of x msec and B uses a SPF delay timer of y
      msec and x < y, B would start converging after A leading to a
      potential micro-loop.

   o  SPF computation time : mostly a matter of CPU power and
      optimizations like incremental SPF.  If A computes SPF faster than
      B, there is a chance for a micro-loop to appear.  CPUs are today
      faster enough to consider SPF computation time as negligeable
      (order of msec in a large network).

   o  RIB and FIB prefix insertion speed or ordering : highly
      implementation dependant.

   This document will focus on analysis SPF delay (and associated
   triggers).

3.  SPF trigger strategies

   Depending of the change advertised in LSP/LSA, the topology may be
   affected or not.  An implementation can decide to not run SPF (and
   only run IP reachability) if the advertised change is not affecting
   topology.

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   Different strategies exists to trigger SPF :

   1.  Always run full SPF whatever the change to process.

   2.  Run only Full SPF when required : e.g. if a link fails, a local
       node will run an SPF for its local LSP update.  If the LSP from
       the neighbor (describing the same failure) is received after SPF
       has started, the local node can decide that a new full SPF is not
       required as the topology has not change.

   3.  If topology does not change, only recompute reachability.

   As pointed in Section 1, SPF optimization are not mandatory in
   specifications, leading to multiple strategies to be implemented.

4.  SPF delay strategies

   Implementations of link state routing protocols use different
   strategies to delay SPF :

   1.  Two steps.

   2.  Exponential backoff.

4.1.  Two step SPF delay

   The SPF delay is managed by four parameters :

   o  Rapid delay : amount of time to wait before running SPF.

   o  Rapid runs : amount of consecutive SPF runs that can run using
      rapid delay.  When amount is exceeded router moves to slow delay.

   o  Slow delay : amount of time to wait before running SPF.

   o  Wait time : amount of time to wait without events before going
      back to rapid delay.

   Example : Rapid delay = 50msec, Rapid runs = 3, Slow delay = 1sec,
   Wait time = 2sec

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   SPF delay time
       ^
       |
       |
   SD- |             x xx x
       |
       |
       |
   RD- |   x  x   x                    x
       |
       +---------------------------------> Events
           |  |   |  | || |            |
                           < wait time >

4.2.  Exponential backoff

   The algorithm has two mode : fast mode and backoff mode.  In backoff
   mode, the SPF delay is increasing exponentially at each run.  The SPF
   delay is managed by four parameters :

   o  First delay : amount of time to wait before running SPF.  This
      delay is used only when SPF is in fast mode.

   o  Incremental delay : amount of time to wait before running SPF.
      This delay is used only when SPF is in backoff mode and increments
      exponentially at each SPF run.

   o  Maximum delay : maximum amount of time to wait before running SPF.

   o  Wait time : amount of time to wait without events before going
      back to fast mode.

   Example : First delay = 50msec, Incremental delay = 50msec, Maximum
   delay = 1sec, Wait time = 2sec

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   SPF delay time
       ^
   MD- |               xx x
       |
       |
       |
       |
       |
       |             x
       |
       |
       |
       |          x
       |
   FD- |   x  x                        x
   ID  |
       +---------------------------------> Events
           |  |   |  | || |            |
                           < wait time >
          FM->BM -------------------->FM

5.  Mixing strategies

                              S ---- E
                              |      |
                           10 |      | 10
                              |      |
                              D ---- A
                              |  2
                              Px

                                   Figure 2

   In the diagram above, we consider a flow of packet from S to D.  We
   consider that S is using optimized SPF triggering (Full SPF is
   triggered only when necessary), and two steps SPF delay
   (rapid=150ms,rapid-runs=3, slow=1s).  As implementation of S is
   optimized, Partial Reachability Computation (PRC) is available.  We
   consider the same timers as SPF for delaying PRC.  We consider that E
   is using a SPF trigger strategy that always compute Full SPF and
   exponential backoff strategy for SPF delay (start=150ms, inc=150ms,
   max=1s)

   We also consider the following sequence of events (note : the
   timescale does not intend to represent a real router timescale where
   jitters are introduced to all timers) :

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   o  t0=0 ms : a prefix is declared down in the network.  We consider
      this event to happen at time=0.

   o  200ms : the prefix is declared as up.

   o  400ms : a prefix is declared down in the network.

   o  1000ms : S-D link fails.

   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+
   |  Time  |   Network Event    | Router S events  | Router E events  |
   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+
   |  t0=0  |    Prefix DOWN     |                  |                  |
   |  10ms  |                    | Schedule PRC (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 160ms  |                    |    PRC starts    |    SPF starts    |
   | 161ms  |                    |     PRC ends     |                  |
   | 162ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   | 163ms  |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 164ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 175ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   | 178ms  |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 200ms  |     Prefix UP      |                  |                  |
   | 212ms  |                    | Schedule PRC (in |                  |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |                  |
   | 214ms  |                    |                  | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |                  |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 370ms  |                    |    PRC starts    |                  |
   | 372ms  |                    |     PRC ends     |                  |
   | 373ms  |                    |                  |    SPF starts    |
   | 373ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   | 375ms  |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 376ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 383ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   | 385ms  |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 400ms  |    Prefix DOWN     |                  |                  |
   | 410ms  |                    | Schedule PRC (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      300ms)      |      300ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   | 710ms  |                    |    PRC starts    |    SPF starts    |
   | 711ms  |                    |     PRC ends     |                  |
   | 712ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   | 713ms  |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 714ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 716ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1000ms |   S-D link DOWN    |                  |                  |
   | 1010ms |                    | Schedule SPF (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |      600ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1160ms |                    |    SPF starts    |                  |
   | 1161ms |                    |     SPF ends     |                  |
   | 1162ms |   Micro-loop may   |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   |        |  start from here   |                  |                  |
   | 1175ms |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1612ms |                    |                  |    SPF starts    |
   | 1615ms |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 1616ms |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 1626ms |  Micro-loop ends   |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

                    Route computation event time scale

   In the table above, we can see that due to discrepancies in SPF
   management, after multiple events (different types of event), SPF
   delays are completely misaligned between nodes leading to long micro-
   loop creation.

   The same issue can also appear with only single type of events as
   displayed below :

   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+
   |  Time  |   Network Event    | Router S events  | Router E events  |
   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+
   |  t0=0  |     Link DOWN      |                  |                  |
   |  10ms  |                    | Schedule SPF (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 160ms  |                    |    SPF starts    |    SPF starts    |
   | 161ms  |                    |     SPF ends     |                  |
   | 162ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   | 163ms  |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 164ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 175ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   | 178ms  |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 200ms  |     Link DOWN      |                  |                  |
   | 212ms  |                    | Schedule SPF (in |                  |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |                  |
   | 214ms  |                    |                  | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |                  |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 370ms  |                    |    SPF starts    |                  |
   | 372ms  |                    |     SPF ends     |                  |
   | 373ms  |                    |                  |    SPF starts    |
   | 373ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   | 375ms  |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 376ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 383ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   | 385ms  |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 400ms  |     Link DOWN      |                  |                  |
   | 410ms  |                    | Schedule SPF (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |      300ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 560ms  |                    |    SPF starts    |                  |
   | 561ms  |                    |     SPF ends     |                  |
   | 562ms  |   Micro-loop may   |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   |        |  start from here   |                  |                  |
   | 568ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 710ms  |                    |                  |    SPF starts    |
   | 713ms  |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 714ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 716ms  |  Micro-loop ends   |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1000ms |     Link DOWN      |                  |                  |
   | 1010ms |                    | Schedule SPF (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |       1s)        |      600ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1612ms |                    |                  |    SPF starts    |
   | 1615ms |                    |                  |     SPF ends     |
   | 1616ms |   Micro-loop may   |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   |        |  start from here   |                  |                  |
   | 1626ms |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 2012ms |                    |    SPF starts    |                  |
   | 2014ms |                    |     SPF ends     |                  |
   | 2015ms |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   | 2025ms |  Micro-loop ends   |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

                    Route computation event time scale

6.  Proposed work items

   In order to enhance the current LinkState IGP behavior, authors would
   encourage working on standardization of some behaviors.

   Authors are proposing the following work items :

   o  Standardize SPF trigger strategy.

   o  Standardize computation timer scope : single timer for all
      computation operations, separated timers ...

   o  Standardize "slowdown" timer algorithm including its association
      to a particular timer : authors of this document does not presume
      that the same algorithm must be used for all timers.

   Using the same event sequence as in figure 2, we may expect fewer
   and/or shorter micro-loops using standardized implementations.

   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+
   |  Time  |   Network Event    | Router S events  | Router E events  |
   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+
   |  t0=0  |    Prefix DOWN     |                  |                  |
   |  10ms  |                    | Schedule PRC (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 160ms  |                    |    PRC starts    |    PRC starts    |
   | 161ms  |                    |     PRC ends     |                  |
   | 162ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |     PRC ends     |
   | 163ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 175ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   | 176ms  |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 200ms  |     Prefix UP      |                  |                  |
   | 212ms  |                    | Schedule PRC (in |                  |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |                  |
   | 213ms  |                    |                  | Schedule PRC (in |
   |        |                    |                  |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 370ms  |                    |    PRC starts    |    PRC starts    |
   | 372ms  |                    |     PRC ends     |                  |
   | 373ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |     PRC ends     |
   | 374ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 383ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   | 384ms  |                    |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 400ms  |    Prefix DOWN     |                  |                  |
   | 410ms  |                    | Schedule PRC (in | Schedule PRC (in |
   |        |                    |      300ms)      |      300ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 710ms  |                    |    PRC starts    |    PRC starts    |
   | 711ms  |                    |     PRC ends     |     PRC ends     |
   | 712ms  |                    |  RIB/FIB starts  |                  |
   | 713ms  |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 716ms  |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1000ms |   S-D link DOWN    |                  |                  |
   | 1010ms |                    | Schedule SPF (in | Schedule SPF (in |
   |        |                    |      150ms)      |      150ms)      |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   |        |                    |                  |                  |
   | 1160ms |                    |    SPF starts    |                  |
   | 1161ms |                    |     SPF ends     |    SPF starts    |
   | 1162ms |   Micro-loop may   |  RIB/FIB starts  |     SPF ends     |
   |        |  start from here   |                  |                  |
   | 1163ms |                    |                  |  RIB/FIB starts  |
   | 1175ms |                    |   RIB/FIB ends   |                  |
   | 1177ms |  Micro-loop ends   |                  |   RIB/FIB ends   |
   +--------+--------------------+------------------+------------------+

                    Route computation event time scale

   As displayed above, there could be some other parameters like router
   computation power, flooding timers that may also influence micro-
   loops.  In the figure 5, we consider E to be a bit slower than S,

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

   leading to micro-loop creation.  Despite of this, we expect that by
   aligning implementations at least on SPF trigger and SPF delay,
   service provider may reduce number or duration of micro-loops.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any security consideration.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Mike Shand for his useful comments.

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no action for IANA.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1195]  Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
              dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2328]  Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-microloop-analysis]
              Zinin, A., "Analysis and Minimization of Microloops in
              Link-state Routing Protocols", draft-ietf-rtgwg-microloop-
              analysis-01 (work in progress), October 2005.

   [I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay]
              Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and P.
              Francois, "Microloop prevention by introducing a local
              convergence delay", draft-litkowski-rtgwg-uloop-delay-03
              (work in progress), February 2014.

   [RFC6976]  Shand, M., Bryant, S., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C.,
              Francois, P., and O. Bonaventure, "Framework for Loop-Free
              Convergence Using the Ordered Forwarding Information Base
              (oFIB) Approach", RFC 6976, July 2013.

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                spf-microloop                    June 2015

Authors' Addresses

   Stephane Litkowski
   Orange Business Service

   Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com

   Bruno Decraene
   Orange

   Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com

   Martin Horneffer
   Deutsche Telekom

   Email: martin.horneffer@telekom.de

Litkowski, et al.       Expires December 25, 2015              [Page 14]