Network Working Group J. Jeganathan
Internet-Draft H. Gredler
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: January 31, 2014 B. Decraene
France Telecom - Orange
July 30, 2013
2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection
draft-minto-2547-egress-node-fast-protection-02
Abstract
This document specifies a fast-protection mechanism for protecting
[RFC2547] based VPN service against egress node failure. This
mechanism enables local repair to be performed immediately upon a
egress node failure. In particular, the routers upstream to egress
node could redirect VPN traffic to a protector (a new role) to repair
in the order of tens of milliseconds, achieving fast protection that
is comparable to MPLS fast reroute.
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 January 31, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
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. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Protector and Protection Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.1. Co-located protector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.2. Centralized protector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1.3. Hybrid protector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Context Identifier and VPN prefixes. . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. MPLS egress Fast reroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.1. RSVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.2. LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. Forwarding State on Protector PE . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4.1. Alternate egress PE for protected prefix. . . . . . . 9
6. Egress node Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Discussion on deployment models. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Simple deployment model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Deployment requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
This document specifies a fast-protection mechanism for protecting
RFC 2547 based VPN against egress PE failure. The procedures in this
document are relevant only when a VPN site is multi-homed to two or
more PEs. This is mainly designed based on MPLS context specific
label switching[RFC5331]. This fast-protection refers to the ability
to provide local repair upon a failure in the order of tens of
milliseconds, which is comparable to MPLS fast-reroute [RFC4090].
This fast-protection is achieved by establishing local protection as
close to a failure as possible. Compared with the existing global
repair mechanisms that rely on control plane convergence, these
procedures could provide faster and more deterministic restoration
for VPN traffic. However, this is intended to complement the global
repair mechanisms, rather than replacing them in any way.
2. Specification of Requirements
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 RFC 2119.
3. Terminology
Protected PE: A PE which request fast-protection for set of VPN-IP
prefixes.
Protected VPN-IP prefix: A multi-homed VPN-IP prefix that required
protection in event of protected node goes down.
Protector: A router which protect one or more Protected VPN-IP prefix
when a Protected node goes down.
BGP nexthop: A nexthop advertised in the BGP-Update for the VPN-IP
prefix by a BGP speaker.
VPN label: A label advertised by a BGP speaker for set of VPN-IP
prefixes. This label could be per-VRF label or per-nexthop label or
per-prefix label.
Transport LSP: A MPLS LSP setup to BGP nexthop either by LDP or RSVP.
Alternative egress PE: A PE originates VPN-IP prefix with same IP
prefix of the protected VPN-IP prefix in a same VPN.
Context MPLS table: A context-specific label space FIB. This table
is populated with VPN labels advertised by the protected-PE for the
protected VPN-IP prefix.
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
Context label: A label from protector provides context for context-
specific label forwarding.
Context VRF: A IP FIB with alternate nexthop per context per site.
PLR: Point of Local Repair.
4. Reference topology
This document refers to the following topologies to describe various
roles, procedures and solution.
.......................
. .
+-------+--CE1----PE1 PE4----CE5---+-------+
| red | . \ / . | red |
| site1 | . \ / . | site2 |
+-------+--CE2-----+ P--P--PLR1 +----CE6---+-------+
. | / | | \ | .
. PE2 RR | PE5 .
. | \ | | / | .
+-------+--CE3-----+ P--P--PLR2 +----CE7--+-------+
| blue | . / \ . |blue |
| site1 | . / \ . |site2 |
+-------+--CE4-----PE3 PE6----CE8--+-------+
. .
. .
.......................
Figure 1
In Figure 1 there are two VPNs red and blue with two multi-homed
sites connecting to their PEs. Assume blue VPN site2 and red VPN
site2 required egress protection in case of PE5 goes down. Then PE5
is protected PE for red VPN site2 for and blue VPN site2. VPN-IP
prefixes originated by PE5 associated with red site2 and blue site2
are protected VPN prefixes. The MPLS label associated with VPN-IP
prefix is VPN Label. The PE4 is an alternative egress PE for red
site2 and PE6 is an alternative egress PE for blue site2. The
protector role could be delegated to any existing router in the
network. For example PE4 could act as protector for red VPN site2
and PE6 could acts as protector for blue VPN site2. This protector
model is co-located model. Alternatively, RR or any other router
participates in VPN-IP control plane and not connected to VPN sites
could also act as protector for both red and blue VPN site2. This
model is centralized model.
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
.......................
. .
+-------+--CE1----PE1 PE4----CE5---+-------+
| red | . \ / . | red |
| site1 | . \ / . | site2 |
+-------+--CE2-----+ P--P--PLR1 +----CE6---+-------+
. | / | | \ | .
. PE2 RR | PE5 .
. | \ | | / | .
+-------+--CE3-----+ P--P--PLR2 +----CE7--+-------+
| red | . / \ . |red |
| site3 | . / \ . |site4 |
+-------+--CE4-----PE3 PE6----CE8--+-------+
. .
. .
.......................
Figure 2
In Figure 2 there is a VPN red with four sites and all sites are
multi homed to their PEs. Assume site2 and site4 require egress
protection in case PE5 goes down. Then PE5 is the protected PE for
site2 and site4. PE4 and PE6 are alternate PEs for site2 and site4
respectively. Here also the protector role could be delegated to any
existing router in the network. For example PE4 could act as a
protector for site2 and PE6 could act as a protector for site4. This
is called the 'co-located model'. Also PE4 or PE6 could act as
protector for both sites. This is called the 'hybrid model'.
The various protector models and deployment guidance are spelled-out
in Section 5.1 and Section 7.
5. Theory of Operation
Each (egress) PE attached to a given multi-homed site originates VPN-
IP route(s) associated with the destination(s) within that site.
Each such route should have its own Route Distinguisher, and its own
next-hop, although all these routes have the same Route Target(s).
Each (ingress) PE attached to other sites within the same VPN, import
these route(s) into VRF creating more than one possible path to
multi-homed sites. When an egress PE goes down, all VPN traffic
destined to the multi homed sites attached to the downed egress PE
gets rerouted to alternate egress PE(s) attached to same multi-homed
site by ingress PE(s) after it detects the egress PE down. Until
ingress PE(s) reroute the VPN traffic, the traffic that used to go
through the failed PE get dropped in penultimate hop router. Even
though connectivity of multi-homed site is not bound to an egress PE,
the VPN traffic gets dropped in the P router as a result of the
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
downed transport LSP that binds to that egress PE. This document
specifies a mechanism that repairs VPN traffic at the point of
failure (typically a P router which is penultimate hop of the
transport LSP) and still keep P router unaware of the VPN information
with the help of a protector. Section 5.1 explain the details. The
penultimate hop router(s) of the transport LSP to egress PE(PLR)
reroutes VPN traffic to protector through a bypass LSP in the event
of egress PE failure. Protector forwards VPN traffic received from
PLR in the bypass LSP to the alternative egress PE until the ingress
PE reroute traffic to alternate egress PE.
5.1. Protector and Protection Models
Protector, a new role, could be delegated to a router which
participates in VPN-IP control plane for VPN-IP prefixes that
requires egress node protection. In a network, protector could be
the alternate egress PE of a egress protected multi homed site
(precisely: the egress protected VPN-IP prefixes), or any other PE or
stand-alone router for egress protection.
This specification defines three types of protector:
o co-located
o centralized
o hybrid
Its designation is dependent on the protector having direct links to
the alternate site for a given VPN. A network MAY use either
protection model or a combination depending on the requirements and
actual network topology.
5.1.1. Co-located protector
In this model, the protector role is delegated to the alternate
egress PE for a protected VPN site. Protector is co-located with the
alternate PE for the protected VPN site, and it has a direct
connection to the multi-homed site that originates the protected VPN-
IP prefix. In the event of an egress node failure, the protector
receives traffic from the PLR, and forwards VPN traffic to the multi-
homed site. In the Figure 1 co-located protector could be PE4 red
VPN site2 and PE6 could be the co-located protector for blue VPN
site2.
5.1.2. Centralized protector
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
In this model, the protector serves as a centralized protector and
does not have a direct connection to egress protected multi-homed
sites. This model can be played by existing PEs or a dedicated
protector. In the event of an egress PE failure, protector MUST
forwards the traffic to an alternate egress PE with the VPN label
advertised by the alternate egress PE for the VPN-IP prefix, which in
turn forwards the traffic to the multi-homed site. In the Figure 1RR
could act as protector for red's site2 and blue's site2 or PE6 could
act as protector for red's site2 and PE4 acts as protector for VPN
blue's site2. This is centralized protector model (A PE protecting
VPN(s) and not connected to any protected VPN site).
5.1.3. Hybrid protector
In this model, the protector is co-located for some egress protected
sites and centralized for other egress protected sites. These
protected egress sites could be in the same VPN or in different VPN.
In the Figure 2either PE4 or PE6 could act as hybrid protector.
Figure 1PE6 could act as hybrid protector for VPNs red site2 and blue
site2.
5.2. Context Identifier and VPN prefixes.
Context-identifier is an IP address that is either globally unique or
unique in the private address space of the routing domain. A
context-identifier is shared between protected PE and protector(s)
and It provides forwarding context for protected PE and protector.
In the Protected PE each VPN-IP prefix is assigned to a context-
identifier. The granularity of a context identifier is {Egress PE,
VPN-IP prefix} tuple. However, a given context identifier MAY be
assigned to one or multiple VPN-IP prefixes. A given context
identifier MUST NOT be used by more than one protected PE and should
never used for setting up BGP sessions or any control plane sessions.
The egress PE that requires protection for a VPN-IP prefix MUST set
context-identifier as the BGP nexthop for VPN-IPv4 and IPv4-Mapped
context-identifier for VPN-IPv6. This context-identifier as nexthop
indicates to the protector that a particular VPN-IP prefix need
protection. For example in Figure 1 PE5 (protected PE) advertises
VPN-IP prefixes with context-identifier as BGP nexthop. The context
identifier MUST also be advertised in the IGP and in LDP if LDP is
used to establish transport LSP.
Possible context identifier assignments are
o Unique context-identifier for all VPN-IP prefixes, both VPN-IPv4
and VPN-IPv6. Here all the VRFs on a PE share same context-
identifier.
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
o Unique context-identifier per address family. Here all the VRFs
on the PE share the same context-identifier for given address
family.
o Unique context-identifier per site for all VPN-IP prefixes, both
VPN-IPv4 and VPN-IPv6. Here every VRFs has different context-
identifier.
o Unique context-identifier per site per address family. Here every
VRFs has different context-identifiers for a given address family.
o Unique context-identifier per CE address (nexthop). Here every CE
in a VRF has a different context-identifier.
o Unique context identifier for each VPN-IP prefix. Here every VPN-
IP has a different context-identifier.
The first one is coarsest granularity of a context identifier and the
last one is finest granularity of a context identifier. While all of
the above options are possible in principle, their practical usage is
likely to vary, as not all of them may be of practical usage.
5.3. MPLS egress Fast reroute
A Protector should be able to receive the traffic from PLR in the
event of an egress PE failure with forwarding context that enables
protector to repair VPN traffic.
5.3.1. RSVP
If RSVP LSP is used for transport then protector and primary MUST
follow procedures specified in [rsvp-egress-frr]. The context-
identifier will be used as destination address of the protected LSP
and the protector will be backup egress node of the protected LSP.
PLR MUST follow [rsvp-egress-frr] procedure if alias method is used.
5.3.2. LDP
If LDP is used for transport then LDP FEC MUST be the context
identifier. The protector for the context identifier and context
label could be learned through IGP which is beyond the scope of the
document. The node protecting bypass path could be computed either
by remote LFA or LFA for the context identifier to protector. This
bypass LSP to protector with context label, learned through IGP,
provide forwarding context to protector.
5.4. Forwarding State on Protector PE
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
A Protector MUST maintain multiple forwarding tables. Protector
maintains the forwarding state in context-specific label space on per
context-Identifier basis. It also maintains context specific IP
forwarding table, context VRF, populated by extracting IP from VPN-IP
prefix with nexthop to alternate egress PE for egress protected
prefixes. In particular, the protector MUST learn VPN labels
associated with VPN-IP prefixes by participating in VPN routing and
MUST keep routes and labels associated with VPN(s) site(s) that
required protection. For each VPN label with an associated context-
identifier, the protector MUST map the context identifier to a
context-specific label space [RFC5331], and programs the VPN label in
that label space into its forwarding plane. The VPN label in the
context-specific label space identifies the IP forwarding table, that
need to be looked up to send it alternate egress PE.
The protector MAY maintain only VPN-IP prefix originated with-in the
multi-homed site for given {egress PE, VPN} tuple. These VPN labels
in context table and context VRF will not be used in forwarding after
the ingress PE reroutes the traffic to the new best PE. Protector
MUST delete VPN label and the VPN context table after ingress reroute
the traffic. This SHOULD be achieved with a timer. This timer
default value is 180 seconds, allowing to be able to sustain large
reroute events.
Note that if the protected PE does advertise a distinct label per
VPN-IP prefix, as an optimization, the protector PE does not need to
create an context VRF as the MPLS lookup on the VPN label is enough
to identify the outgoing PE and label.
5.4.1. Alternate egress PE for protected prefix.
Any route with BGP nexthop which has the following properties
Exact matching route-target set
Exact matching Prefix part (excluding the RD)
will be eligible as alternate egress PE for prefix.
6. Egress node Failure
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
This section summarizes the procedure for egress protection as
described in the above section for completeness. A Egress PE,
Protector, PLR follows the methods described in Section 5.3. The
protector programs forwarding state in such a way that packets
received on the bypass LSP will be forwarded based on VPN label in
the context table, and prefix lookup in context VPN table. The
context table is identified by the UHP label of the bypass LSP, i.e.
the context identifier.
When the penultimate Hop router receives a VPN packet from the MPLS
network, if the egress PE is down, the PLR tunnels the packet through
the bypass LSP to the protector. The protector PE identifies the
forwarding context of the egress PE based on the top label of the
packet which is the UHP label of the bypass LSP. The protector
further performs a second label lookup in the protected PE's context
label space followed by layer-3 lookup in the VPN context table.
These UHP label, context table label and layer-3 lookup results in
forwarding the packet to the site or send it to alternate egress PE
based on protector model.
For example in Figure 1 RR acts as Protector and PE5 requires
protection for red, blue site2 VPN-IP prefixes. As red site2 and
blue site2 VPN-IP prefixes are advertised with context-identifier,
the protector sets up the forwarding table for VPN-IP prefixes from
site2 with alternative egress PE as nexthop. When PLR detects PE5
failure it sends all the traffic that PLR used to forward directly to
PE5 to protector through bypass LSP. In the protector the top label
identifies the context specific table. The VPN label in the context
table identifies the VPN layer-3 forwarding table which contains
site2 VPN-IP prefixes with alternate PE as nexthop. A Layer-3 lookup
gives mpls path to alternate egress PE and protector will forward the
packet to alternate egress PE and reach to the site2.
7. Deployment Considerations
7.1. Discussion on deployment models.
As the context-identifiers are advertised in the IGP, they introduce
additional states in the network and the forwarding tables. As such,
in general, it's desirable to keep their number limited. The
granularity of context-identifier is also related to the protector
model used. If a centralized or hybrid protector model is used, a
unique context-identifier per egress PE is enough. If a co-located
protector model is used, a context identifier per VPN or per CE may
be needed.
The centralized protector model, using a single context identifier
per protected PE, limits the number of additional states in the
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
network (IGP, forwarding tables) but may add extra latency during the
protection time. It also minimizes the configuration effort as zero
configuration is achievable. On the contrary the co-located mode,
having a more granular context identifier, will minimize the latency
during the protection time at the cost of adding more states in the
network. It requires more configuration as the service provider will
need to defines the PE pairs (protected, protector). The hybrid
model is expected to offer the best trade-off as the number of IGP
states in the network can be minimized by using a single context
identifier per protected PE, while the additional latency can be
limited by geographically distributing the protector PE in the
network.
7.2. Simple deployment model.
We propose the following simple deployment model:
o a single centralized Protector PE.
o a single context-identifier per protected PE, with all VPN routes
advertised with this context-identifier as BGP next-hop.
It provides the following benefits:
o minimize the number of IGP states in the network.
o minimize the configuration required: no per VPN configuration on
the protector PE.
Regarding the IGP states, no additional states are required if the
PEs uses secondary loopback address as BGP nexthop for VPN-IP address
family. Otherwise, one additional IP address per PE need is needed.
However, the number of IP address used as BGP next-hop for the
customer traffic is not increased, hence if the routers allows the
prioritization of the prefix during FIB update, there is no impact on
the IGP convergence time.
Regarding the configuration required on the network:
o The protected PE is configured once with an additional IP address
which serves as a context identifier. The BGP Next-Hop of the BGP
routes are set to this context-identifier.
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
o The centralized protector PE does not required per VPN
configuration. But it should allow set of context-identifiers to
control VPN or PE it need to protects. This will be useful in
multiple protectors in the network and set of PEs are protected by
a given protector. The configured context-identifiers in
protector protects subset of sites or PEs.
If one want to limit the protection to only a subset of VPN or a
subset of PE (for lower VPN-SLA reasons, FIB capacities reasons on
the protector, forwarding capacity reason during the protection time,
for the hybrid model), one may not set context-identifier as a
nexthop to the VPN-IP routes that required protection. VPN per
protected PE configuration is required if user wants to limit egress
protection for subset of sites. In this case protected be should
allow user to not set the context-identifier as BGP nexthop for
advertised VPN-IP prefixes.
7.3. Deployment requirements.
This solution does not mandate any protocol extension on any router.
It does not mandate any additional feature on any routers except the
new protector PE. In particular, it does not mandate implementation
change on ingress nor egress PE, hence could works with legacy PE.
In most topology, when LDP is used, the PLR will need to support the
use of a LDP LSP as a targeted LFA. This is similar to R-LFA but the
ability to configure a specific LSP to reach the protector PE may be
specific.
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations discussed in RFC 5036, RFC 5331, RFC
3209, and RFC 4090 apply to this document.
9. Acknowledgements
This draft is based on the ideas originally developed by JL Le Roux,
Bruno Decraene and Zubair Ahmad. This document leverages work done
by Yakov Rekhter and several others on LSP tail-end protection.
Thanks to Nischal Sheth, Nitin Bahadur, Yimin shen, Kaliraj
Vairavakkalai and Maciek Konstantynowicz for their valuable
contribution.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
[RFC5331] Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space", RFC
5331, August 2008.
[RFC2547] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS VPNs", RFC 2547, March
1999.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[LDP-UPSTREAM]
Aggarwal, R. and J. Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment
for LDP", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-upstream (work in progress),
2011.
[RSVP-NON-PHP-OOB]
Ali, A., Swallow, Z., and R. Aggarwal, "Non PHP Behavior
and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs", draft-ietf-
mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping (work in progress), 2011.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 2547 egress PE Fast Failure Protection July 2013
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
5714, January 2010.
[rsvp-egress-frr]
Jeganathan, J., Gredler, H., and Y. Shen, "IP Fast Reroute
Framework", draft-minto-rsvp-lsp-egress-fast-protection-01
(work in progress), Oct 2012, <rsvp egress frr>.
Authors' Addresses
Jeyananth Minto Jeganathan
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: minto@juniper.net
Hannes Gredler
Juniper Networks
1194 N Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
USA
Email: hannes@juniper.net
Bruno Decraene
France Telecom - Orange
38 rue du General Leclerc
Issy Moulineaux cedex 9 92794
France
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Jeganathan, et al. Expires January 31, 2014 [Page 14]