Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP) Networks
RFC 6571
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2020-07-29
|
06 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag (all errata rejected)) |
|
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2012-08-22
|
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Adrian Farrel |
|
2012-06-12
|
06 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2012-01-19
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Approval announcement text regenerated |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2012-01-18
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-06.txt |
|
2012-01-11
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-05.txt |
|
2012-01-06
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan. |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Shawn Emery. |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation. |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] I would normally enter a DISCUSS on these two issues if the document was standards track. As it is informational I will just … [Ballot comment] I would normally enter a DISCUSS on these two issues if the document was standards track. As it is informational I will just mention the issues, in the hope that the authors would agree to consider them before publication. 1. The document is very dense and not easy reading, and one of the reasons is the lack of context explanation. The reader familiarity with the types of networks and the algorithms is assumed. Even the term Service Provider needs an explanation, there are many kinds of SPs and SP networks. Other example - you need to read through section 4 until you encounter for the first time the term MPLS. 2. There is very little information on the operational impact of deploying and activating LFAs. Section 6 only makes some claims of reduced complexity without much substantiation. There are no manageability considerations at all. If these are desscribed in another document please specify where. |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I agree wholeheartedly with Peter's comments. |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations say: " This document does not introduce any new security considerations." I am sure this is true, but it … [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations say: " This document does not introduce any new security considerations." I am sure this is true, but it does not really help the reader. Please add a sentence pointing the reader to security considerations from IP/MPLS. The late Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 4-Jan-2012 includes a good suggestion. Suresh suggests: This draft needs an informative reference to RFC5286. Without this reference it is very difficult to get the context required to understand this draft. Please consider adding the reference. |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Nice doc! |
|
2012-01-05
|
06 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] Personally I found this document to be nearly impenetrable, but that's probably because the air is so thin up here at the application … [Ballot comment] Personally I found this document to be nearly impenetrable, but that's probably because the air is so thin up here at the application layer. :) I am balloting "No Objection" on the assumption that our Routing ADs have performed up to their usual high standard of excellence. |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] Personally I found this document to be nearly impenetrable, but that's probably because the air is so thin up here at the application … [Ballot comment] Personally I found this document to be nearly impenetrable, but that's probably because the air is so thin up here at the application layer. :) I am balloting "No Objection" on the assumption that our Routing ADs have performed up to their usual high standard of excellence. |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have cleared my Discuss and moved to a Yes ballot. Thanks for addressing some of my comments. I still wish the I-D … [Ballot comment] I have cleared my Discuss and moved to a Yes ballot. Thanks for addressing some of my comments. I still wish the I-D would spend more time looking at the security (are rpf checks commonly used in the topologies that are discussed, and if so what will be done to improve security when rpf checks are disabled) and management (what will be the consequences for management of turning on LFAs in the topologies discussed). But I don't think this is a blocking concern. --- Section 2 starts with... In this document, we assume that all links to be protected are point- to-point. The introduction has not mentioned the need to protect any links (nor what the concept of a protected link is). --- ISIS and OSPF should have references in Section 2. |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2012-01-04
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2012-01-03
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations say: " This document does not introduce any new security considerations." I am sure this is true, but it … [Ballot comment] The Security Considerations say: " This document does not introduce any new security considerations." I am sure this is true, but it does not really help the reader. Please add a sentence pointing the reader to security considerations from IP/MPLS. |
|
2012-01-03
|
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-03
|
06 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-02
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot comment] In Section 3.8, under "Intra Area Destinations", the Node Protection evaluations use "Full" rather than "yes", which is inconsistent with the explanation of … [Ballot comment] In Section 3.8, under "Intra Area Destinations", the Node Protection evaluations use "Full" rather than "yes", which is inconsistent with the explanation of terms at the beginning of the section and with the terms used for the next subsection for "Inter Area Destinations". |
|
2012-01-02
|
06 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-02
|
06 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Please show "(LFA)" as the acronym for "LoopFree Alternate" at the top of the Introduction. --- … [Ballot comment] Please show "(LFA)" as the acronym for "LoopFree Alternate" at the top of the Introduction. --- Section 1 could really use a reference to RFC 5714 to establish what LFA actually means. I would suggest a new five-line paragraph summarising LFAs. --- Section 2 starts with... In this document, we assume that all links to be protected are point- to-point. The introduction has not mentioned the need to protect any links (nor what the concept of a protected link is). --- ISIS and OSPF should have references in Section 2. |
|
2012-01-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] I would like to ballot "Yes" on this document, but I think the Security Considerations are lacking. Although, of course, this document cannot … [Ballot discuss] I would like to ballot "Yes" on this document, but I think the Security Considerations are lacking. Although, of course, this document cannot introduce any security issues, I believe it should discuss the security implications of LFAs. Can they be leveraged to swamp the network or do other forms of DoS? Can they provide a way in that would normally not be available? At the very least there should be an explanation of why applying LFAs does not make any difference to the security model for routing/forwarding. --- I should have liked to see some discussion of the management implications of LFAs. Both in terms of what needs to be configured/managed at a router that applies LFAs, and in terms of how diagnostics are impacted at a neighboring router. |
|
2012-01-02
|
06 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded |
|
2012-01-01
|
06 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
|
2011-12-30
|
06 | Mary Barnes | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
|
2011-12-30
|
06 | Mary Barnes | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
|
2011-12-30
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup. |
|
2011-12-22
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Shawn Emery |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-01-05 |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot has been issued |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from Last Call Requested. |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call was requested |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup. |
|
2011-12-21
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call text changed |
|
2011-12-08
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
|
2011-12-08
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-04.txt |
|
2011-10-20
|
06 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from In Last Call. |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: <rtgwg@ietf.org> Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-03.txt> (LFA applicability in SP networks) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Routing Area Working Group WG (rtgwg) to consider the following document: - 'LFA applicability in SP networks' <draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-03.txt> as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-21. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In this draft, we analyze the applicability of LoopFree Alternates in both core and access parts of Service Provider networks. We provide design guides to favor their applicability where relevant, typically in the access part of the network. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Ballot writeup text changed |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call was requested |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested. |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | Stewart Bryant | Last Call text changed |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2011-10-07
|
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Document Shepherd: Alvaro Retana (alvaro.retana@hp.com) I have reviewed the document and believe that the current version (-03) is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has been discussed in the rtgwg WG (both on the mailing list and during in-person meetings). No concerns about the reviews. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? No need for specialized review. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No additional concerns about the content. No related IPR statements. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document has been active for a long time. In general, there hasn't been any opposition at all -- the WG understands and agrees with the document. OTOH, given that this is an informational document that analyzes the use of LFAs through a number of examples with significant detail, the support voices have not been overwhelming. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Yes. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. There's only one reference (total), and it is informative. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? Yes, the section is consistent; there is no IANA action required. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? N/A (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary In this document, the applicability of LoopFree Alternates in both core and access parts of Service Provider networks is analyzed. Design guides are provided to favor their applicability where relevant, typically in the access part of the network. Working Group Summary There is consensus in the WG to publish this document. Document Quality This document analyzes the applicability and provides design and deployment guidance for LFAs (as defined in RFC 5714 - IP Fast Reroute Framework). There are no changes suggested to the original framework. Personnel Document Shepherd: Alvaro Retana Responsible AD: Stewart Bryant |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Alvaro Retana (alvaro.retana@hp.com) is the document shepherd.' added |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Changed protocol writeup |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Document Write-Up sent to AD and iesg-secretary. |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Document Write-Up sent to AD and iesg-secretary. |
|
2011-09-27
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway cleared. |
|
2011-09-20
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | IETF state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
|
2011-09-20
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Official Process Start for RFC publication |
|
2011-09-20
|
06 | Alvaro Retana | Annotation tag Doc Shepherd Follow-Up Underway set. |
|
2011-08-17
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-03.txt |
|
2011-05-04
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-02.txt |
|
2011-03-12
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-01.txt |
|
2011-03-03
|
06 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2010-08-30
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-rtgwg-lfa-applicability-00.txt |