Route Redistribution Credibility ID for Avoiding Routing Loop
draft-wang-lsr-redistribution-credibility-id-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | WANG QIANG | ||
| Last updated | 2024-02-17 (Latest revision 2023-08-16) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The route redistribution is often deployed in current network between two different protocols domain or instance/process, such as the ISIS domain redistribute to OSPF domain, the OSPF domain redistribute to BGP domain, IS-IS redistribute to another IS-IS instance/process and so on. The existing network have more complex multiple IGP domains architecture. Therefore, bidirectional route redistribution deployment is more complex for different protocols or instances/ processes to learn routes from each other. In recent years, these route redistributions have had many routing loops cases that cause network incident. This document proposes a simplified method to positively avoid routing loop, and introduces new sub-TLVs to support advertisement IPv4 and IPv6 prefix extended attribute as Redistribution Credibility ID, while redistributing route from one protocol domain or instance/ process to another.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)