Network Working Group T. Morin
Internet-Draft France Telecom - Orange Labs
Intended status: Experimental Y. Rekhter
Expires: April 29, 2010 R. Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
W. Henderickx
P. Muley
Q. Ray
Alcatel-Lucent
October 26, 2009
Multicast VPN fast upstream failover
draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-fast-failover-03
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
Abstract
This document defines multicast VPN extensions and procedures that
allow fast failover for upstream failures, by allowing downstream PEs
to take into account the status of Provider-Tunnels (P-tunnels) when
selecting the upstream PE for a VPN multicast flow, and extending BGP
MVPN routing so that a C-multicast route can be advertised toward a
standby upstream PE.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. UMH Selection based on tunnel status . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Determining the status of a tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. mVPN tunnel root tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. PE-P Upstream link status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.3. P2MP RSVP-TE tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.4. Leaf-initiated P-tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.5. P2MP LSP OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1.6. (S,G) counter information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Standby C-multicast route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Downstream PE behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Upstream PE behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Reachability determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Inter-AS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.1. Inter-AS procedures for downstream PEs, ASBR fast
failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.2. Inter-AS procedures for ASBRs . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Hot leaf standby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Duplicate packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
1. Introduction
In the context of multicast in BGP/MPLS VPNs, it is desirable to
provide mechanisms allowing fast recovery of connectivity on
different types of failures. This document addresses failures of
elements in the provider network that are upstream of PEs connected
to VPN sites with receivers.
The sections 3 and 4 describe two independent mechanisms, allowing
different levels of resiliency, and providing different failure
coverage:
o Section 3 describes local procedures allowing an egress PE (a PE
connected to a receiver site) to take into account the status of
P-Tunnels to determine the Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for a
given (C-S, C-G).
o Section 4 describes protocol extensions that can speed up failover
by not requiring any multicast VPN routing message exchange at
recovery time.
Moreover, section 5 describes a "hot leaf standby" mechanism, that
uses a combination of these two mechanisms. This approach has
similarities with the solution described in [I-D.karan-mofrr] to
improve failover times when PIM routing is used in a network given
some topology and metric constraints.
2. Terminology
The terminology used in this document is the terminology defined in
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast] and
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp].
3. UMH Selection based on tunnel status
Current multicast VPN specifications [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast],
section 5.1, describe the procedures used by a multicast VPN
downstream PE to determine what the upstream multicast hop (UMH) is
for a said (C-S,C-G).
The procedure described here is an OPTIONAL procedure that consist in
having a downstream PE take into account the status of P-tunnels
rooted at each possible upstream PEs, for including or not including
each said PE in the list of candidate UMHs for a said (C-S,C-G)
state. The result is that, if a P-tunnel is "down" (see
Section 3.1), the PE that is the root of the P-Tunnel will not be
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
considered for UMH selection, which will result in the downstream PE
to failover to the upstream PE which is next in the list of
candidates.
More precisely, UMH determination for a said (C-S,C-G) will consider
the UMH candidates in the following order:
o first, the UMH candidates that either (a) advertise a PMSI bound
to a tunnel that is "up", or (b) do not advertise any I- or S-
PMSI applicable to the said (C-S,C-G) but have associated a VRF
Route Import BGP attribute to the unicast VPN route for S (this is
necessary to avoid considering invalid some UMH PEs that use a a
policy where no I-PMSI is advertized for a said VRF and where only
S-PMSI are used, the S-PMSI advertisement being possibly done only
after the upstream PE receives a C-multicast route for (C-S,
C-G)/(C-*, C-G) to be carried over the advertised S-PMSI)
o second, the UMH candidates that advertise a PMSI bound to a tunnel
that is "down" -- these will thus be used as a last resort to
ensure a graceful fallback to the basic MVPN UMH selection
procedures in the hypothetical case where a false negative would
occur when determining the status of all tunnels
For a said downstream PE and a said VRF, the P-tunnel corresponding
to a said upstream PE for a said (C-S,C-G) state is the S-PMSI tunnel
advertized by that upstream PE for this (C-S,C-G) and imported into
that VRF, or if there isn't any such S-PMSI, the I-PMSI tunnel
advertized by that PE and imported into that VRF.
Note that this documents assumes that if a site of a given MVPN that
contains C-S is dual-homed to two PEs, then all the other sites of
that MVPN would have two unicast VPN routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6)
routes to C-S, each with its own RD.
3.1. Determining the status of a tunnel
Different factors can be considered to determine the "status" of a
P-tunnel and are described in the following sub-sections. The
procedure proposed here also allows that all downstream PEs don't
apply the same rules to define what the status of a P-tunnel is
(please see Section 6), and some of them will produce a result that
may be different for different downstream PEs. Thus what is called
the "status" of a P-tunnel in this section, is not a characteristic
of the tunnel in itself, but is the status of the tunnel, *as seen
from a particular downstream PE*.
Depending on the criteria used to determine the status of a P-tunnel,
there may be an interaction with other resiliency mechanism used for
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
the P-tunnel itself, and the UMH update may happen immediately or may
need to be delayed. Each particular case is covered in each separate
sub-section below.
3.1.1. mVPN tunnel root tracking
A condition to consider that the status of a P-tunnel is up is that
the root of the tunnel, as determined in the PMSI tunnel attribute,
is reachable through unicast routing tables. In this case the
downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when the reachability
condition changes.
This is similar to BGP next-hop tracking for VPN routes, except that
the address considered is not the BGP next-hop address, but the root
address in the PMSI tunnel attribute.
If BGP next-hop tracking is done for VPN routes, and the root address
of a said tunnel happens to be the same as the next-hop address in
the BGP autodiscovery route advertising the tunnel, then this
mechanisms may be omitted for this tunnel, as it will not bring any
specific benefit.
3.1.2. PE-P Upstream link status
A condition to consider a tunnel status as up can be that the last-
hop link of the P-tunnel is up.
In that case, if the PE can determine that there is no fast
restoration mechanism (such as MPLS FRR [RFC4090]) in place for the
P-tunnel, it can update the UMH immediately. Else, it should wait
before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel restoration mechanims
happen. A configurable timer MUST be provided for this purpose, and
it is recommended to provide a reasonable default value for this
timer.
3.1.3. P2MP RSVP-TE tunnels
For P-Tunnels of type P2MP MPLS-TE, the status of the P-Tunnel is
considered up if one or more of the P2MP RSVP-TE LSPs, identified by
the P-Tunnel Attribute, are in up state. The determination of
whether a P2MP RSVP-TE LSP is in up state requires Path and Resv
state for the LSP and is based on procedures in [RFC4875]. In this
case the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when the
reachability condition changes.
When signaling state for a P2MP TE LSP is removed (e.g. if the
ingress of the P2MP TE LSP sends a PathTear message) or the P2MP TE
LSP changes state from up to down as determined by procedures in
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
[RFC4875], the status of the corresponding P-Tunnel SHOULD be re-
evaluated. If the P-Tunnel transitions from up to down state, the
upstream PE, that is the ingress of the P-Tunnel, SHOULD not be
considered a valid UMH.
3.1.4. Leaf-initiated P-tunnels
A PE can be removed from the UMH candidate list for a said (S,G) if
the P-tunnel for this S,G (I or S , depending) is leaf triggered
(PIM, mLDP), but for some reason internal to the protocol the
upstream one-hop branch of the tunnel from P to PE cannot be built.
In this case the downstream PE can immediately update its UMH when
the reachability condition changes.
3.1.5. P2MP LSP OAM
When a P2MP connectivity verification mechanism such as
[I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint] used in conjunction with bootstraping
mechanisms described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mcast-cv] has been setup for a
tunnel, the result of the connectivity verification can be used to
define the status of the tree.
If a MultipointHead session has been established on a P2MP MPLS LSP
so that BFD packets are periodically sent from the root toward
leaves, a condition to consider the status of corresponding tunnel as
up is that the BFD SessionState is Up.
When such a procedure is used, in context where fast restoration
mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, downstream PEs should be
configured to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel
restoration mechanims happen. A configurable timer MUST be provided
for this purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable
default value for this timer.
3.1.6. (S,G) counter information
In cases, where the downstream node can be configured so that the
maximum inter-packet time is known for all the multicast flows mapped
on a P-tunnel, the local per-(C-S,C-G) traffic counter information
for traffic received on this P-tunnel can be used to determine the
status of the P-tunnel.
When such a procedure is used, in context where fast restoration
mechanisms are used for the P-tunnels, downstream PEs should be
configured to wait before updating the UMH, to let the P-tunnel
restoration mechanims happen. A configurable timer MUST be provided
for this purpose, and it is recommended to provide a reasonable
default value for this timer.
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
This method can be applicable for instance when a (S,G) flow is
mapped on an S-PMSI.
In cases where this mechanism is used in conjunction with Hot leaf
standby, then no prior knowledge of the rate of the multicast streams
is required ; downstream PEs can compare reception on the two
P-tunnels to determine when one of them is down.
4. Standby C-multicast route
The procedures described below are limited to the case where the site
that contains C-S is connected to exactly two PEs. The procedures
require all the PEs of that MVPN to follow the single forwarder PE
selection, as specified in [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast]. The
procedures assume that if a site of a given MVPN that contains C-S is
dual-homed to two PEs, then all the other sites of that MVPN would
have two unicast VPN routes (VPN-IPv4 or VPN-IPv6) routes to C-S,
each with its own RD.
As long as C-S is reachable via both PEs, a said downstream PE will
select one of the PEs connected to C-S as its Upstream PE with
respect to C-S. We will refer to the other PE connected to C-S as
the "Standby Upstream PE". Note that if the connectivity to C-S
through the Primary Upstream PE becomes unavailable, then the PE will
select the Standby Upstream PE as its Upstream PE with respect to
C-S.
For readability, in the following sub-sections, the procedures are
described for BGP C-multicast Source Tree Join routes, but they apply
equally to BGP C-multicast Shared Tree Join routes failover for the
case where the customer RP is dual-homed (substitute "C-RP" to
"C-S").
4.1. Downstream PE behavior
When a (downstream) PE connected to some site of an MVPN needs to
send a C-multicast route (C-S, C-G), then following the procedures
specified in Section "Originating C-multicast routes by a PE" of
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp] the PE sends the C-multicast route
with RT that identifies the Upstream PE selected by the PE
originating the route. As long as C-S is reachable via the Primary
Upstream PE, the Upstream PE is the Primary Upstream PE. If C-S is
reachable only via the Standby Upstream PE, then the Upstream PE is
the Standby Upstream PE.
If C-S is reachable via both the Primary and the Standby Upstream PE,
then in addition to sending the C-multicast route with an RT that
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
identifies the Primary Upstream PE, the PE also originates and sends
a C-multicast route with an RT that identifies the Standby Upstream
PE. This route, that has the semantic of being a 'standby'
C-multicast route, is further called a "Standby BGP C-multicast
route", and is constructed as follows:
o the NLRI is constructed as the original C-multicast route, except
that the RD is the same as if the C-multicast route was built
using the standby PE as the UMH (it will carry the RD associated
to the unicast VPN route advertised by the standby PE for S)
o MUST carry the "Standby PE" BGP Community (this is a new BGP
Community, see Section 7)
The normal and the standby C-multicast routes must have their Local
Preference attribute adjusted so that, if two C-multicast routes with
same NLRI are received by a BGP peer, one carrying the "Standby PE"
attribute and the other one *not* carrying the "Standby PE"
community, then preference is given to the one *not* carrying the
"Standby PE" attribute. Such a situation can happen when, for
instance due to transient unicast routing inconistencies, two
different downstream PEs consider different upstream PEs to be the
primary one ; in that case, without any precaution taken, both
upstream PEs would process a standby C-multicast route and possibly
stop forwarding at the same time. For this purpose a Standby BGP
C-multicast route MUST have the LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero.
Note that, when a PE advertizes such a Standby C-multicast join for
an (S,G) it must join the corresponding P-tunnel.
If at some later point the local PE determines that C-S is no longer
reachable through the Primary Upstream PE, the Standby Upstream PE
becomes the Upstream PE, and the local PE re-sends the C-multicast
route with RT that identifies the Standby Upstream PE, except that
now the route does not carry the Standby PE BGP Community (which
results in replacing the old route with a new route, with the only
difference between these routes being the presence/absence of the
Standby PE BGP Community).
4.2. Upstream PE behavior
When a PE receives a C-multicast route for a particular (C-S, C-G),
and the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a
particular VRF on the PE, if the route carries the Standby PE BGP
Community, then the PE performs as follows:
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
when the PE determines that C-S is not reachable through some
other PE, the PE SHOULD install VRF PIM state corresponding to
this Standby BGP C-multicast route (the result will be that a PIM
Join message will be sent to the CE towards C-S, and that the PE
will receive (C-S,C-G) traffic), and the PE SHOULD forward (C-S,
C-G) traffic received by the PE to other PEs through a P-tunnel
rooted at the PE.
Furthermore, irrespective of whether C-S carried in that route is
reachable through some other PE:
a) based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby BGP
C-multicast route, the PE MAY install VRF PIM state corresponding
to this BGP Source Tree Join route (the result will be that Join
messages will be sent to the CE toward C-S, and that the PE will
receive (C-S,C-G) traffic)
b) based on local policy, as soon as the PE receives this Standby BGP
C-multicast route, the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G) traffic to other
PEs through a P-tunnel independently of the reachability of C-S
through some other PE. [note that this implies also doing (a)]
Doing neither (a), nor (b) for a said (C-S,C-G) is called "cold root
standby".
Doing (a) but not (b) for a said (C-S,C-G) is called "warm root
standby".
Doing (b) (which implies also doing (a)) for a said (C-S,C-G) is
called "hot root standby".
Note that, if an upstream PE uses an S-PMSI only policy, it shall
advertise an S-PMSI for an (S,G) as soon as it receives a C-multicast
route for (S,G), normal or Standby ; i.e. it shall not wait for
receiving a non-Standby C-multicast route before advertising the
corresponding S-PMSI.
4.3. Reachability determination
The standby PE can use the following information to determine that
C-S can or cannot be reached through the primary PE:
o presence/absence of a unicast VPN route toward C-S
o supposing that the standby PE is an egress of the tunnel rooted at
the Primary PE, the standby PE can determine the reachability of
C-S through the Primary PE based on the status of this tunnel,
determined thanks to the same criteria as the ones described in
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
Section 3.1 (without using the UMH selection procedures of
Section 3)
o other mechanisms MAY be used
4.4. Inter-AS
If the non-segmented inter-AS approach is used, the procedures in
section 4 can be applied.
When multicast VPNs are used in a inter-AS context with the segmented
inter-AS approach described in section 8.2 of
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp], the procedures in this section
can be applied.
A pre-requisite for the procedures described below to be applied for
a source of a said MVPN is:
o that any PE of this MVPN receives two Inter-AS I-PMSI auto-
discovery routes advertized by the AS of the source (or more)
o that these Inter-AS I-PMSI autodiscovery routes have distinct
Route Distinguishers (as described in item "(2)" of section 9.2 of
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp]).
As an example, these conditions will be satisfied when the source is
dual homed to an AS that connects to the receiver AS through two ASBR
using auto-configured RDs.
4.4.1. Inter-AS procedures for downstream PEs, ASBR fast failover
The following procedure is applied by downstream PEs of an AS, for a
source S in a remote AS.
Additionaly to choosing an Inter-AS I-PMSI autodiscovery route
advertized from the AS fo the source to construct a C-multicast
route, as described in section 11.1.3
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp] a downstream PE will choose a
second Inter-AS I-PMSI autodiscovery route advertized from the AS fo
the source to advertise a Standby C-multicast route (C-multicast
route carrying the Standby extended community) as described in
Section 4.1.
4.4.2. Inter-AS procedures for ASBRs
When an upstream ASBR that receives a C-multicast route, and at least
one of the RTs of the route matches one of the ASBR Import RT, and
the ASBR locates an Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D route whose RD and Source AS
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
matches the RD and Source AS carried in the C-multicast route, if the
route carries the Standby PE BGP Community, then the ASBR performs as
follows:
o if the route was received over iBGP ; the route is expected to
have a LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero and it should be re-
advertized in eBGP with a MED attribute (MULTI_EXIT_DISC) set to
the highest possible value (0xffff)
o if the route was received over eBGP ; the route is expected to
have a MED attribute set of 0xffff and should be re-advertised in
iBGP with a LOCAL_PREF attribute set to zero
Other ASBR procedures are applied without modification.
5. Hot leaf standby
The mechanisms defined in the two previous section can be used
together as follows.
The principle is that, for a said VRF (or possibly only for a said
C-S,C-G):
o downstream PEs advertise a Standby BGP C-multicast route (based on
Section 4)
o upstream PEs use the "hot standby" optional behavior and thus will
forward traffic for a said multicast state as soon as they have
whether a (primary) BGP C-multicast route or a Standby BGP
C-multicast route for that state (or both)
o downstream PEs accept traffic from the primary or standby tunnel,
based on the status of the tunnel (based on Section 3)
Other combinations of the mechanisms proposed in Section 4) and
Section 3 are for further study.
Note that the same level of protection would be achievable with a
simple C-multicast Source Tree Join route advertised to both the
primary and secondary upstream PEs (carrying as Route Target extended
communities, the values of the VRF Route Import attribute of each VPN
route from each upstream PEs). The advantage of using the Standby
semantic for is that, supposing that downstream PEs always advertise
a Standby C-multicast route to the secondary upstream PE, it allows
to choose the protection level through a change of configuration on
the secondary upstream PE, without requiring any reconfiguration of
all the downstream PEs.
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
6. Duplicate packets
Multicast VPN specifications [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast] impose
that a PE only forwards to CEs the packets coming from the expected
usptream PE (Section 9.1).
We highlight the reader's attention to the fact that the respect of
this part of multicast VPN specifications is especially important
when two distinct upstream PEs are succeptible to forward the same
traffic on P-tunnels at the same time in steady state. This will be
the case when "hot root standby" mode is used (Section 4), and which
can also be the case if procedures of Section 3 are used and (a) the
rules determining the status of a tree are not the same on two
distinct downstream PEs or (b) the rule determining the status of a
tree depend on conditions local to a PE (e.g. the PE-P upstream link
being up).
7. IANA Considerations
Allocation is expected from IANA for the BGP "Standby PE" community.
(TBC)
[Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.]
8. Security Considerations
9. Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank Greg Reaume for its review and useful
feedback.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast]
Aggarwal, R., Bandi, S., Cai, Y., Morin, T., Rekhter, Y.,
Rosen, E., Wijnands, I., and S. Yasukawa, "Multicast in
MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-08 (work
in progress), March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp]
Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp-08 (work in
progress), September 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mcast-cv]
Swallow, G., "Connectivity Verification for Multicast
Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-mcast-cv-00 (work
in progress), April 2007.
[I-D.karan-mofrr]
Karan, A., Filsfils, C., and D. Farinacci, "Multicast only
Fast Re-Route", draft-karan-mofrr-00 (work in progress),
March 2009.
[I-D.katz-ward-bfd-multipoint]
Katz, D. and D. Ward, "BFD for Multipoint Networks",
draft-katz-ward-bfd-multipoint-02 (work in progress),
February 2009.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
May 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Thomas Morin
France Telecom - Orange Labs
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: thomas.morin@orange-ftgroup.com
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft mVPN fast upstream failover October 2009
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.
Email: yakov@juniper.net
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks
1194 North Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
U.S.A.
Email: rahul@juniper.net
Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018
Belgium
Email: wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.com
Praveen Muley
Alcatel-Lucent
701 East Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
U.S.A.
Email: praveen.muley@alcatel-lucent.com
Qiu Ray
Alcatel-Lucent
701 East Middlefield Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
U.S.A.
Email: Ray.Qiu@alcatel-lucent.com
Morin, et al. Expires April 29, 2010 [Page 14]
