Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)
RFC 7490
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (April 2015; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Stewart Bryant , Clarence Filsfils , Stefano Previdi , Mike Shand , Ning So | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-shand-remote-lfa | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Alvaro Retana | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2014-09-29) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7490 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alia Atlas | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Bryant
Request for Comments: 7490 C. Filsfils
Category: Standards Track S. Previdi
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
M. Shand
Independent Contributor
N. So
Vinci Systems
April 2015
Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)
Abstract
This document describes an extension to the basic IP fast reroute
mechanism, described in RFC 5286, that provides additional backup
connectivity for point-to-point link failures when none can be
provided by the basic mechanisms.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490.
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.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview of Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Tunnels as Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Tunnel Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Construction of Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Identifying Required Tunneled Repair Paths . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Determining Tunnel Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2.1. Computing Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2.2. Selecting Repair Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. A Cost-Based RLFA Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Interactions with IS-IS Overload, RFC 6987, and Costed
Out Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6. Example Application of Remote LFAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Node Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Operation in an LDP Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Analysis of Real World Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Topology Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. LFA Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.3. RLFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.4. Comparison of LFA and RLFA results . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. Management and Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Historical Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
1. Introduction
RFC 5714 [RFC5714] describes a framework for IP Fast Reroute (IPFRR)
and provides a summary of various proposed IPFRR solutions. A basic
mechanism using Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) is described in [RFC5286]
that provides good repair coverage in many topologies [RFC6571],
especially those that are highly meshed. However, some topologies,
notably ring-based topologies, are not well protected by LFAs alone.
This is because there is no neighbor of the Point of Local Repair
(PLR) that has a cost to the destination via a path that does not
traverse the failure that is cheaper than the cost to the destination
via the failure.
The method described in this document extends the LFA approach
described in [RFC5286] to cover many of these cases by tunneling the
packets that require IPFRR to a node that is both reachable from the
PLR and can reach the destination.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terms defined in [RFC5714]. This section
defines additional terms that are used in this document.
Repair tunnel:
A tunnel established for the purpose of providing a virtual
neighbor that is a Loop-Free Alternate.
P-space:
The P-space of a router with respect to a protected link is the
set of routers reachable from that specific router using the pre-
convergence shortest paths without any of those paths (including
equal-cost path splits) transiting that protected link.
For example, the P-space of S with respect to link S-E is the set
of routers that S can reach without using the protected link S-E.
Extended P-space:
Consider the set of neighbors of a router protecting a link.
Exclude from that set of routers the router reachable over the
protected link. The extended P-space of the protecting router
with respect to the protected link is the union of the P-spaces of
the neighbors in that set of neighbors with respect to the
protected link (see Section 5.2.1.2).
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
Q-space:
The Q-space of a router with respect to a protected link is the
set of routers from which that specific router can be reached
without any path (including equal-cost path splits) transiting
that protected link.
PQ node:
A PQ node of a node S with respect to a protected link S-E is a
node that is a member of both the P-space (or the extended
P-space) of S with respect to that protected link S-E and the
Q-space of E with respect to that protected link S-E. A repair
tunnel endpoint is chosen from the set of PQ-nodes.
Remote LFA (RLFA):
The use of a PQ node rather than a neighbor of the repairing node
as the next hop in an LFA repair [RFC5286].
In this document, the notation X-Y is used to mean the path from X to
Y over the link directly connecting X and Y while the notation X->Y
refers to the shortest path from X to Y via some set of unspecified
nodes including the null set (i.e., including over a link directly
connecting X and Y).
2.1. 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].
3. Overview of Solution
The problem of LFA IPFRR reachability in some networks is illustrated
by the network fragment shown in Figure 1 below.
S---E
/ \
A D
\ /
B---C
Figure 1: A Simple Ring Topology
If all link costs are equal, traffic that is transiting link S-E
cannot be fully protected by LFAs. The destination C is an Equal-
Cost Multipath (ECMP) from S, and so traffic to C can be protected
when S-E fails but traffic to D and E are not protectable using LFAs.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
This document describes extensions to the basic repair mechanism in
which tunnels are used to provide additional logical links that can
then be used as loop-free alternates where none exist in the original
topology. In Figure 1, S can reach A, B, and C without going via
S-E; these form S's extended P-space with respect to S-E. The
routers that can reach E without going through S-E will be in E's
Q-space with respect to link S-E; these are D and C. B has equal-
cost paths to E via B-A-S-E and B-C-D-E, and so the forwarder at S
might choose to send a packet to E via link S-E. Hence, B is not in
the Q-space of E with respect to link S-E. The single node in both
S's extended P-space and E's Q-space is C; thus, node C is selected
as the repair tunnel's endpoint. Thus, if a tunnel is provided
between S and C as shown in Figure 2, then C, now being a direct
neighbor of S, would become an LFA for D and E. The definition of
(extended) P-space and Q-space are provided in Section 2, and details
of the calculation of the tunnel end points are provided in
Section 5.2.
The non-failure traffic distribution is not disrupted by the
provision of such a tunnel since it is only used for repair traffic
and MUST NOT be used for normal traffic. Note that Operations,
Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) traffic used specifically to
verify the viability of the repair MAY traverse the tunnel prior to a
failure.
S---E
/ \ \
A \ D
\ \ /
B---C
Figure 2: The Addition of a Tunnel
The use of this technique is not restricted to ring-based topologies
but it is a general mechanism that can be used to enhance the
protection provided by LFAs. A study of the protection achieved
using remote LFA in typical service provider core networks is
provided in Section 9, and a side-by-side comparison between LFA and
remote LFA is provided in Section 9.4.
Remote LFA is suitable for incremental deployment within a network,
including a network that is already deploying LFA. Computation of
the repair path requires acceptable CPU resources and takes place
exclusively on the repairing node. In MPLS networks, the targeted
LDP protocol needed to learn the label binding at the repair tunnel
endpoint (Section 8) is a well understood and widely deployed
technology.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
The technique described in this document is directed at providing
repairs in the case of link failures. Considerations regarding node
failures are discussed in Section 7. This memo describes a solution
to the case where the failure occurs on a point-to-point link. It
covers the case where the repair first hop is reached via a broadcast
or non-broadcast multi-access (NBMA) link such as a LAN and the case
where the P or Q node is attached via such a link. It does not,
however, cover the more complicated case where the failed interface
is a broadcast or NBMA link.
This document considers the case when the repair path is confined to
either a single area or to the level two routing domain. In all
other cases, the chosen PQ node should be regarded as a tunnel
adjacency of the repairing node, and the considerations described in
Section 6 of [RFC5286] should be taken into account.
4. Repair Paths
As with LFA FRR, when a router detects an adjacent link failure, it
uses one or more repair paths in place of the failed link. Repair
paths are precomputed in anticipation of later failures so they can
be promptly activated when a failure is detected.
A tunneled repair path tunnels traffic to some staging point in the
network from which it is known that, in the absence of a worse-than-
anticipated failure, the traffic will travel to its destination using
normal forwarding without looping back. This is equivalent to
providing a virtual loop-free alternate to supplement the physical
loop-free alternates; hence the name "remote LFA FRR". In its
simplest form, when a link cannot be entirely protected with local
LFA neighbors, the protecting router seeks the help of a remote LFA
staging point. Network manageability considerations may lead to a
repair strategy that uses a remote LFA more frequently [LFA-MANAGE].
Examples of worse failures are node failures (see Section 7), the
failure of a Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG), the independent
concurrent failures of multiple links, or broadcast or NBMA links
(Section 3); protecting against such failures is out of scope for
this specification.
4.1. Tunnels as Repair Paths
Consider an arbitrary protected link S-E. In LFA FRR, if a path to
the destination from a neighbor N of S does not cause a packet to
loop back over the link S-E (i.e., N is a loop-free alternate), then
S can send the packet to N and the packet will be delivered to the
destination using the pre-failure forwarding information. If there
is no such LFA neighbor, then S may be able to create a virtual LFA
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
by using a tunnel to carry the packet to a point in the network that
is not a direct neighbor of S from which the packet will be delivered
to the destination without looping back to S. In this document, such
a tunnel is termed a repair tunnel. The tail end of this tunnel (the
repair tunnel endpoint) is a "PQ node", and the repair mechanism is a
"remote LFA". This tunnel MUST NOT traverse the link S-E.
Note that the repair tunnel terminates at some intermediate router
between S and E, and not E itself. This is clearly the case, since
if it were possible to construct a tunnel from S to E, then a
conventional LFA would have been sufficient to effect the repair.
4.2. Tunnel Requirements
There are a number of IP-in-IP tunnel mechanisms that may be used to
fulfill the requirements of this design, such as IP-in-IP [RFC1853]
and Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC1701].
In an MPLS-enabled network using LDP [RFC5036], a simple label stack
[RFC3032] may be used to provide the required repair tunnel. In this
case, the outer label is S's neighbor's label for the repair tunnel
endpoint, and the inner label is the repair tunnel endpoint's label
for the packet destination. In order for S to obtain the correct
inner label, it is necessary to establish a targeted LDP session
[RFC5036] to the tunnel endpoint.
The selection of the specific tunneling mechanism (and any necessary
enhancements) used to provide a repair path is outside the scope of
this document. The deployment in an MPLS/LDP environment is
relatively simple in the data plane, as an LDP Label Switched Path
(LSP) from S to the repair tunnel endpoint (the selected PQ node) is
readily available and hence does not require any new protocol
extension or design change. This LSP is automatically established as
a basic property of LDP behavior. The performance of the
encapsulation and decapsulation is efficient, as encapsulation is
just a push of one label (like conventional MPLS-TE FRR) and the
decapsulation is normally configured to occur at the penultimate hop
before the repair tunnel endpoint. In the control plane, a Targeted
LDP (TLDP) session is needed between the repairing node and the
repair tunnel endpoint, which will need to be established and the
labels processed before the tunnel can be used. The time to
establish the TLDP session and acquire labels will limit the speed at
which a new tunnel can be put into service. This is not anticipated
to be a problem in normal operation since the managed introduction
and removal of links is relatively rare, as is the incidence of
failure in a well-managed network.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
When a failure is detected, it is necessary to immediately redirect
traffic to the repair path. Consequently, the repair tunnel used
MUST be provisioned beforehand in anticipation of the failure. Since
the location of the repair tunnels is dynamically determined, it is
necessary to automatically establish the repair tunnels. Multiple
repair tunnels may share a tunnel endpoint.
5. Construction of Repair Paths
5.1. Identifying Required Tunneled Repair Paths
Not all links will require protection using a tunneled repair path.
Referring to Figure 1, if E can already be protected via an LFA, S-E
does not need to be protected using a repair tunnel since all
destinations normally reachable through E must therefore also be
protectable by an LFA; such an LFA is frequently termed a "link LFA".
Tunneled repair paths (which may be calculated per prefix) are only
required for links that do not have a link or per-prefix LFA.
It should be noted that using the Q-space of E as a proxy for the
Q-space of each destination can result in failing to identify valid
remote LFAs. The extent to which this reduces the effective
protection coverage is topology dependent.
5.2. Determining Tunnel Endpoints
The repair tunnel endpoint needs to be a node in the network
reachable from S without traversing S-E. In addition, the repair
tunnel endpoint needs to be a node from which packets will normally
flow towards their destination without being attracted back to the
failed link S-E.
Note that once released from the tunnel, the packet will be
forwarded, as normal, on the shortest path from the release point to
its destination. This may result in the packet traversing the router
E at the far end of the protected link S-E, but this is obviously not
required.
The properties that are required of repair tunnel endpoints are as
follows:
o The repair tunneled point MUST be reachable from the tunnel source
without traversing the failed link; and
o when released from the tunnel, packets MUST proceed towards their
destination without being attracted back over the failed link.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
Provided both these requirements are met, packets forwarded over the
repair tunnel will reach their destination and will not loop after a
single link failure.
In some topologies it will not be possible to find a repair tunnel
endpoint that exhibits both the required properties. For example, if
the ring topology illustrated in Figure 1 had a cost of four for the
link B-C while the remaining links were the cost of one, then it
would not be possible to establish a tunnel from S to C (without
resorting to some form of source routing).
5.2.1. Computing Repair Paths
To compute the repair path for link S-E, it is necessary to determine
the set of routers that can be reached from S without traversing S-E
and match this with the set of routers from which the node E can be
reached by normal forwarding without traversing the link S-E.
The approach used in this memo is as follows:
o The method of computing the set of routers that can be reached
from S on the shortest path tree without traversing S-E is
described. This is called the S's P-space with respect to the
failure of link S-E.
o The distance of the tunnel endpoint from the PLR is increased by
noting that S is able to use the P-space of its neighbors with
respect to the failure of link S-E since S can determine which
neighbor it will use as the next hop for the repair. This is
called the S's extended P-space with respect to the failure of
link S-E. The use of extended P-space allows greater repair
coverage and is the preferred approach.
o Finally, two methods of computing the set of routers from which
the node E can be reached by normal forwarding without traversing
the link S-E. This is called the Q-space of E with respect to the
link S-E.
The selection of the preferred node from the set of nodes that are in
both extended P-space and Q-space with respect to the S-E is
described in Section 5.2.2.
A suitable cost-based algorithm to compute the set of nodes common to
both extended P-space and Q-space with respect to the S-E is provided
in Section 5.3.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
5.2.1.1. P-space
The set of routers that can be reached from S on the shortest path
tree without traversing S-E is termed the P-space of S with respect
to the link S-E. This P-space can be obtained by computing a
Shortest Path Tree (SPT) rooted at S and excising the subtree reached
via the link S-E (including those routers that are members of an ECMP
that includes link S-E). The exclusion of routers reachable via an
ECMP that includes S-E prevents the forwarding subsystem from
attempting to execute a repair via the failed link S-E. Thus, for
example, if the Shortest Path First (SPF) computation stores at each
node the next hops to be used to reach that node from S, then the
node can be added to P-space if none of its next hops are link S-E.
In the case of Figure 1, this P-space comprises nodes A and B only.
Expressed in cost terms, the set of routers {P} are those for which
the shortest path cost S->P is strictly less than the shortest path
cost S->E->P.
5.2.1.2. Extended P-space
The description in Section 5.2.1.1 calculated router S's P-space
rooted at S itself. However, since router S will only use a repair
path when it has detected the failure of the link S-E, the initial
hop of the repair path need not be subject to S's normal forwarding
decision process. Thus, the concept of extended P-space is
introduced. Router S's extended P-space is the union of the P-spaces
of each of S's neighbors (N). This may be calculated by computing an
SPT at each of S's neighbors (excluding E) and excising the subtree
reached via the path N->S->E. Note this will excise those routers
that are reachable through all ECMPs that include link S-E. The use
of extended P-space may allow router S to reach potential repair
tunnel endpoints that were otherwise unreachable. In cost terms, a
router (P) is in extended P-space if the shortest path cost N->P is
strictly less than the shortest path cost N->S->E->P. In other
words, once the packet is forced to N by S, it is a lower cost for it
to continue on to P by any path except one that takes it back to S
and then across the S->E link.
Since in the case of Figure 1 node A is a per-prefix LFA for the
destination node C, the set of extended P-space nodes with respect to
link S-E comprises nodes A, B, and C. Since node C is also in E's
Q-space with respect to link S-E, there is now a node common to both
extended P-space and Q-space that can be used as a repair tunnel
endpoint to protect the link S-E.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
5.2.1.3. Q-space
The set of routers from which the node E can be reached, by normal
forwarding without traversing the link S-E, is termed the Q-space of
E with respect to the link S-E. The Q-space can be obtained by
computing a reverse Shortest Path Tree (rSPT) rooted at E, with the
subtree that might traverse the protected link S-E excised (i.e.,
those nodes that would send the packet via S-E plus those nodes that
have an ECMP set to E with one or more members of that ECMP set
traversing the protected link S-E). The rSPT uses the cost towards
the root rather than from it and yields the best paths towards the
root from other nodes in the network. In the case of Figure 1, the
Q-space of E with respect to S-E comprises nodes C and D only.
Expressed in cost terms, the set of routers {Q} are those for which
the shortest path cost Q<-E is strictly less than the shortest path
cost Q<-S<-E. In Figure 1, the intersection of the E's Q-space with
respect to S-E with S's P-space with respect to S-E defines the set
of viable repair tunnel endpoints, known as "PQ nodes". As can be
seen in the case of Figure 1, there is no common node and hence no
viable repair tunnel endpoint. However, when the extended P-space
(Section 5.2.1.2) at S with respect to S-E is considered, a suitable
intersection is found at C.
Note that the Q-space calculation could be conducted for each
individual destination and a per-destination repair tunnel end point
determined. However, this would, in the worst case, require an SPF
computation per destination that is not currently considered to be
scalable. Therefore, the Q-space of E with respect to link S-E is
used as a proxy for the Q-space of each destination. This
approximation is obviously correct since the repair is only used for
the set of destinations which were, prior to the failure, routed
through node E. This is analogous to the use of link LFAs rather
than per-prefix LFAs.
5.2.2. Selecting Repair Paths
The mechanisms described above will identify all the possible repair
tunnel endpoints that can be used to protect a particular link. In a
well-connected network, there are likely to be multiple possible
release points for each protected link. All will deliver the packets
correctly, so arguably, it does not matter which is chosen. However,
one repair tunnel endpoint may be preferred over the others on the
basis of path cost or some other selection criteria.
There is no technical requirement for the selection criteria to be
consistent across all routers, but such consistency may be desirable
from an operational point of view. In general, there are advantages
in choosing the repair tunnel endpoint closest (shortest metric) to
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
S. Choosing the closest maximizes the opportunity for the traffic to
be load balanced once it has been released from the tunnel. For
consistency in behavior, it is RECOMMENDED that the member of the set
of routers {PQ} with the lowest cost S->P be the default choice for
P. In the event of a tie, the router with the lowest node identifier
SHOULD be selected.
It is a local matter whether the repair path selection policy used by
the router favors LFA repairs over RLFA repairs. An LFA repair has
the advantage of not requiring the use of a tunnel; however, network
manageability considerations may lead to a repair strategy that uses
a remote LFA more frequently [LFA-MANAGE].
As described in [RFC5286], always selecting a PQ node that is
downstream to the destination with respect to the repairing node
prevents the formation of loops when the failure is worse than
expected. The use of downstream nodes reduces the repair coverage,
and operators are advised to determine whether adequate coverage is
achieved before enabling this selection feature.
5.3. A Cost-Based RLFA Algorithm
The preceding text has described the computation of the remote LFA
repair target (PQ) in terms of the intersection of two reachability
graphs computed using an SPF algorithm. This section describes a
method of computing the remote LFA repair target for a specific
failed link using a cost-based algorithm. The pseudocode provided in
this section avoids unnecessary SPF computations; for the sake of
readability, it does not otherwise try to optimize the code. The
algorithm covers the case where the repair first hop is reached via a
broadcast or NBMA link such as a LAN. It also covers the case where
the P or Q node is attached via such a link. It does not cover the
case where the failed interface is a broadcast or NBMA link. To
address that case it is necessary to compute the Q-space of each
neighbor of the repairing router reachable through the LAN, i.e., to
treat the pseudonode [RFC1195] as a node failure; this is because the
Q-spaces of the neighbors of the pseudonode may be disjoint and
require use of a neighbor-specific PQ node. The reader is referred
to [NODE-PROTECTION] for further information on the use of RLFA for
node repairs.
The following notation is used:
o D_opt(a,b) is the shortest distance from node a to node b as
computed by the SPF.
o dest is the packet destination.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
o fail_intf is the failed interface (S-E in the example).
o fail_intf.remote_node is the node reachable over interface
fail_intf (node E in the example).
o intf.remote_node is the set of nodes reachable over interface
intf.
o root is the root of the SPF calculation.
o self is the node carrying out the computation.
o y is the node in the network under consideration.
o y.pseudonode is true if y is a pseudonode.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Main Function
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// We have already computed the forward SPF from self to all nodes
// y in network and thus we know D_opt (self, y). This is needed
// for normal forwarding.
// However, for completeness:
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(self)
// To extend P-space, we compute the SPF at each neighbor except
// the neighbor that is reached via the link being protected.
// We will also need D_opt(fail_intf.remote_node,y), so we
// compute that at the same time.
Compute_Neighbor_SPFs()
// Compute the set of nodes {P} reachable other than via the
// failed link.
Compute_Extended_P_Space(fail_intf)
// Compute the set of nodes that can reach the node on the far
// side of the failed link without traversing the failed link.
Compute_Q_Space(fail_intf)
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
// Compute the set of candidate RLFA tunnel endpoints.
Intersect_Extended_P_and_Q_Space()
// Make sure that we cannot get looping repairs when the
// failure is worse than expected.
if (guarantee_no_looping_on_worse_than_protected_failure)
Apply_Downstream_Constraint()
//
// End of Main Function
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Procedures
//
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// This computes the SPF from root and stores the optimum
// distance from root to each node y.
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(root)
Compute_Forward_SPF(root)
foreach node y in network
store D_opt(root,y)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// This computes the optimum distance from each neighbor (other
// than the neighbor reachable through the failed link) and
// every other node in the network.
//
// Note that we compute this for all neighbors, including the
// neighbor on the far side the failure. This is done on the
// expectation that more than one link will be protected and
// that the results are stored for later use.
//
Compute_Neighbor_SPFs()
foreach interface intf in self
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(intf.remote_node)
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// The reverse SPF computes the cost from each remote node to
// root. This is achieved by running the normal SPF algorithm
// but using the link cost in the direction from the next hop
// back towards root in place of the link cost in the direction
// away from root towards the next hop.
Compute_and_Store_Reverse_SPF(root)
Compute_Reverse_SPF(root)
foreach node y in network
store D_opt(y,root)
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Calculate Extended P-space
//
// Note that the "strictly less than" operator is needed to
// avoid ECMP issues.
Compute_Extended_P_Space(fail_intf)
foreach node y in network
y.in_extended_P_space = false
// Extend P-space to the P-spaces of all reachable
// neighbors
foreach interface intf in self
// Exclude failed interface, noting that
// the node reachable via that interface may be
// reachable via another interface (parallel path)
if (intf != fail_intf)
foreach neighbor n in intf.remote_node
// Apply RFC 5286 Inequality 1
if ( D_opt(n, y) <
D_opt(n,self) + D_opt(self, y))
y.in_extended_P_space = true
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Compute the Nodes in Q-space
//
Compute_Q_Space(fail_intf)
// Compute the cost from every node in the network to the
// node normally reachable across the failed link
Compute_and_Store_Reverse_SPF(fail_intf.remote_node)
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
// Compute the cost from every node in the network to self
Compute_and_Store_Reverse_SPF(self)
foreach node y in network
if ( D_opt(y,fail_intf.remote_node) < D_opt(y,self) +
D_opt(self,fail_intf.remote_node) )
y.in_Q_space = true
else
y.in_Q_space = false
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Compute Set of Nodes in Both Extended P-space and in Q-space
Intersect_Extended_P_and_Q_Space()
foreach node y in network
if ( y.in_extended_P_space && y.in_Q_space &&
y.pseudonode == False)
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = true
else
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = false
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// A downstream route is one where the next hop is strictly
// closer to the destination. By sending the packet to a
// PQ node that is downstream, we know that if the PQ node
// detects a failure it will not loop the packet back to self.
// This is useful when there are two failures or when a node has
// failed rather than a link.
Apply_Downstream_Constraint()
foreach node y in network
if (y.valid_tunnel_endpoint)
Compute_and_Store_Forward_SPF(y)
if ((D_opt(y,dest) < D_opt(self,dest))
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = true
else
y.valid_tunnel_endpoint = false
//
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
5.4. Interactions with IS-IS Overload, RFC 6987, and Costed Out Links
Since normal link state routing takes into account the IS-IS overload
bit, OSPF stub router advertisement [RFC6987], and costed out links
(as described in Section 3.5 of [RFC5286]), the forward SPFs
performed by the PLR rooted at the neighbors of the PLR also need to
take this into account. A repair tunnel path from a neighbor of the
PLR to a repair tunnel endpoint will generally avoid the nodes and
links excluded by the IGP overload/costing-out rules. However, there
are two situations where this behavior may result in a repair path
traversing a link or router that should be excluded:
1. One situation is when the first hop on the repair tunnel path
(from the PLR to a direct neighbor) does not follow the IGP
shortest path. In this case, the PLR MUST NOT use a repair
tunnel path whose first hop is along a link that has a cost or
reverse cost equal to MaxLinkMetric (for OSPF) or the maximum
cost (for IS-IS) or whose first hop has the overload bit set (for
IS-IS).
2. The other situation is when the IS-IS overload bit and the
mechanism of [RFC6987] only prevent transit traffic from
traversing a node; they do not prevent traffic destined to a
node. The per-neighbor forward SPFs using the standard IGP
overload rules will not prevent a PLR from choosing a repair
tunnel endpoint that is advertising a desire to not carry transit
traffic. Therefore, the PLR MUST NOT use a repair tunnel
endpoint with the IS-IS overload bit set or where all outgoing
interfaces have the cost set to MaxLinkMetric for OSPF.
6. Example Application of Remote LFAs
An example of a commonly deployed topology that is not fully
protected by LFAs alone is shown in Figure 3. Provider Edge (PE)1
and PE2 are connected in the same site. P1 and P2 may be
geographically separated (intersite). In order to guarantee the
lowest latency path from/to all other remote PEs, normally the
shortest path follows the geographical distance of the site
locations. Therefore, to ensure this, a lower IGP metric (5) is
assigned between PE1 and PE2. A high metric (1000) is set on the
P-PE links to prevent the PEs being used for transit traffic. The
PEs are not individually dual-homed in order to reduce costs.
This is a common topology in Service Provider (SP) networks.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
When a failure occurs on the link between PE1 and P1, PE1 does not
have an LFA for traffic reachable via P1. Similarly, by symmetry, if
the link between PE2 and P2 fails, PE2 does not have an LFA for
traffic reachable via P2.
Increasing the metric between PE1 and PE2 to allow the LFA would
impact the normal traffic performance by potentially increasing the
latency.
| 100 |
-P1---------P2-
\ /
1000 \ / 1000
PE1---PE2
5
Figure 3: Example SP Topology
Clearly, full protection can be provided using the techniques
described in this document by PE1 choosing P2 as the remote LFA
repair target node and PE2 choosing P1 as the remote LFA repair
target.
7. Node Failures
When the failure is a node failure rather than a point-to-point link
failure, there is a danger that the RLFA repair will loop. This is
discussed in detail in [IP-FRR]. In summary, the problem is that two
or more of E's neighbors, each with E as the next hop to some
destination D, may attempt to repair a packet addressed to
destination D via the other neighbor and then E, thus causing a loop
to form. A similar problem exists in the case of a shared risk link
group failure where the PLR for each failure attempts to repair via
the other failure. As will be noted from [IP-FRR], this can rapidly
become a complex problem to address.
There are a number of ways to minimize the probability of a loop
forming when a node failure occurs, and there exists the possibility
that two of E's neighbors may form a mutual repair.
1. Detect when a packet has arrived on some interface I that is also
the interface used to reach the first hop on the RLFA path to the
remote LFA repair target, and drop the packet. This is useful in
the case of a ring topology.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
2. Require that the path from the remote LFA repair target to
destination D never passes through E (including in the ECMP
case), i.e., only use node protecting paths in which the cost
from the remote LFA repair target to D is strictly less than the
cost from the remote LFA repair target to E plus the cost E to D.
3. Require that where the packet may pass through another neighbor
of E, that node is down stream (i.e., strictly closer to D than
the repairing node). This means that some neighbor of E (X) can
repair via some other neighbor of E (Y), but Y cannot repair via
X.
Case 1 accepts that loops may form and suppresses them by dropping
packets. Dropping packets may be considered less detrimental than
looping packets. This approach may also lead to dropping some
legitimate packets. Cases 2 and 3 above prevent the formation of a
loop but at the expense of a reduced repair coverage and at the cost
of additional complexity in the algorithm to compute the repair path.
Alternatively, one might choose to assume that the probability of a
node failure is sufficiently rare that the issue of looping RLFA
repairs can be ignored.
The probability of a node failure and the consequences of node
failure in any particular topology will depend on the node design,
the particular topology in use, and the strategy adopted under node
failure. It is recommended that a network operator perform an
analysis of the consequences and probability of node failure in their
network and determine whether the incidence and consequence of
occurrence are acceptable.
This topic is further discussed in [NODE-PROTECTION].
8. Operation in an LDP Environment
Where this technique is used in an MPLS network using LDP [RFC5036],
and S is a transit node, S will need to swap the top label in the
stack for the remote LFA repair target's (PQ's) label to the
destination and to then push its own label for the remote LFA repair
target.
In the example, S in Figure 2 already has the first hop (A) label for
the remote LFA repair target (C) as a result of the ordinary
operation of LDP. To get the remote LFA repair target's label (C's
label) for the destination (D), S needs to establish a targeted LDP
session with C. The label stack for normal operation and RLFA
operation is shown below in Figure 4.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| datalink | | datalink | | datalink |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| S's label for D | | E's label for D | | A's label for C |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
| Payload | | Payload | | C's label for D |
+-----------------+ +-----------------+ +-----------------+
X Y | Payload |
+-----------------+
Z
X = Normal label stack packet arriving at S
Y = Normal label stack packet leaving S
Z = RLFA label stack to D via C as the remote LFA repair target
Figure 4
To establish a targeted LDP session with a candidate remote LFA
repair target node, the repairing node (S) needs to know what IP
address the remote LFA repair target is willing to use for targeted
LDP sessions. Ideally, this is provided by the remote LFA repair
target advertising this address in the IGP in use. Which address is
used, how this is advertised in the IGP, and whether this is a
special IP address or an IP address also used for some other purpose
is out of scope for this document and must be specified in an
IGP-specific RFC.
In the absence of a protocol to learn the preferred IP address for
targeted LDP, an LSR should attempt a targeted LDP session with the
Router ID [RFC2328] [RFC5305] [RFC5340] [RFC6119] [OSPF-RI] unless it
is configured otherwise.
No protection is available until the TLDP session has been
established and a label for the destination has been learned from the
remote LFA repair target. If for any reason the TLDP session cannot
be established, an implementation SHOULD advise the operator about
the protection setup issue through the network management system.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
9. Analysis of Real World Topologies
This section gives the results of analyzing a number of real world
service provider topologies collected between the end of 2012 and
early 2013.
9.1. Topology Details
The figure below characterizes each topology (topo) studied in terms
of:
o the number of nodes (# nodes) excluding pseudonodes;
o the number of bidirectional links (# links) including parallel
links and links to and from pseudonodes;
o the number of node pairs that are connected by one or more links
(# pairs);
o the number of node pairs that are connected by more than one
(i.e., parallel) link (# para); and
o the number of links (excluding pseudonode links, which are by
definition asymmetric) that have asymmetric metrics (# asym).
+------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
| topo | # nodes | # links | # pairs | # para | # asym |
+------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
| 1 | 315 | 570 | 560 | 10 | 3 |
| 2 | 158 | 373 | 312 | 33 | 0 |
| 3 | 655 | 1768 | 1314 | 275 | 1195 |
| 4 | 1281 | 2326 | 2248 | 70 | 10 |
| 5 | 364 | 811 | 659 | 80 | 86 |
| 6 | 114 | 318 | 197 | 101 | 4 |
| 7 | 55 | 237 | 159 | 67 | 2 |
| 8 | 779 | 1848 | 1441 | 199 | 437 |
| 9 | 263 | 482 | 413 | 41 | 12 |
| 10 | 86 | 375 | 145 | 64 | 22 |
| 11 | 162 | 1083 | 351 | 201 | 49 |
| 12 | 380 | 1174 | 763 | 231 | 0 |
| 13 | 1051 | 2087 | 2037 | 48 | 64 |
| 14 | 92 | 291 | 204 | 64 | 2 |
+------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------+
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
9.2. LFA Only
The figure below shows the percentage of protected destinations (%
prot) and the percentage of guaranteed node protected destinations (%
gtd N) for the set of topologies characterized in Section 9.1
achieved using only LFA repairs.
These statistics were generated by considering each node and then
considering each link to each next hop to each destination. The
percentage of such links across the entire network that are protected
against link failure was determined. This is the percentage of
protected destinations. If a link is protected against the failure
of the next hop node, this is considered Guaranteed Node Protecting
(GNP) and the percentage of guaranteed node protected destinations is
calculated using the same method used for calculating the link
protection coverage.
GNP is identical to node-protecting as defined in [RFC6571] and does
not include the additional node protection coverage obtained by the
de facto node-protecting condition described in [RFC6571].
+------+--------+---------+
| topo | % prot | % gtd N |
+------+--------+---------+
| 1 | 78.5 | 36.9 |
| 2 | 97.3 | 52.4 |
| 3 | 99.3 | 58 |
| 4 | 83.1 | 63.1 |
| 5 | 99 | 59.1 |
| 6 | 86.4 | 21.4 |
| 7 | 93.9 | 35.4 |
| 8 | 95.3 | 48.1 |
| 9 | 82.2 | 49.5 |
| 10 | 98.5 | 14.9 |
| 11 | 99.6 | 24.8 |
| 12 | 99.5 | 62.4 |
| 13 | 92.4 | 51.6 |
| 14 | 99.3 | 48.6 |
+------+--------+---------+
9.3. RLFA
The figure below shows the percentage of protected destinations (%
prot) and % guaranteed node protected destinations (% gtd N) for RLFA
protection in the topologies studies. In addition, it shows the
percentage of destinations using an RLFA repair (% PQ) together with
the total number of unidirectional RLFA targeted LDP sessions
established (# PQ), and the number of PQ sessions that would be
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
required for complete protection but that could not be established
because there was no PQ node, i.e., the number of cases whether
neither LFA or RLFA protection was possible (no PQ). It also shows
the 50 (p50), 90 (p90), and 100 (p100) percentiles for the number of
individual LDP sessions terminating at an individual node (whether
used for TX, RX, or both).
For example, if there were LDP sessions that required A->B, A->C,
C->A, and C->D, these would be counted as 2, 1, 2, and 1 at nodes A,
B, C, and D respectively because:
A has two sessions (to nodes B and C);
B has one session (to node A);
C has two sessions (to nodes A and D); and
D has one session (to node D).
In this study, remote LFA is only used when necessary, i.e., when
there is at least one destination that is not reparable by a per
destination LFA and a single remote LFA tunnel is used (if available)
to repair traffic to all such destinations. The remote LFA repair
target points are computed using extended P-space and choosing the PQ
node that has the lowest metric cost from the repairing node.
+------+--------+--------+------+------+-------+-----+-----+------+
| topo | % prot |% gtd N | % PQ | # PQ | no PQ | p50 | p90 | p100 |
+------+--------+--------+------+------+-------+-----+-----+------+
| 1 | 99.7 | 53.3 | 21.2 | 295 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 14 |
| 2 | 97.5 | 52.4 | 0.2 | 7 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 3 | 99.999 | 58.4 | 0.7 | 63 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| 4 | 99 | 74.8 | 16 | 1424 | 54 | 1 | 3 | 23 |
| 5 | 99.5 | 59.5 | 0.5 | 151 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 7 |
| 6 | 100 | 34.9 | 13.6 | 63 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| 7 | 99.999 | 40.6 | 6.1 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| 8 | 99.5 | 50.2 | 4.3 | 350 | 39 | 0 | 2 | 15 |
| 9 | 99.5 | 55 | 17.3 | 428 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 67 |
| 10 | 99.6 | 14.1 | 1 | 49 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| 11 | 99.9 | 24.9 | 0.3 | 85 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| 12 | 99.999 | 62.8 | 0.5 | 512 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 13 | 97.5 | 54.6 | 5.1 | 1188 | 95 | 0 | 2 | 27 |
| 14 | 100 | 48.6 | 0.7 | 79 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
+------+--------+--------+------+------+-------+-----+-----+------+
Another study [ISOCORE2010] confirms the significant coverage
increase provided by remote LFAs.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
9.4. Comparison of LFA and RLFA results
The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the LFA and the
remote LFA results. This shows a significant improvement in the
percentage of protected destinations and normally a modest
improvement in the percentage of guaranteed node protected
destinations.
+------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
| topo | LFA | RLFA | LFA | RLFA |
| | % prot | %prot | % gtd N | % gtd N |
+------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
| 1 | 78.5 | 99.7 | 36.9 | 53.3 |
| 2 | 97.3 | 97.5 | 52.4 | 52.4 |
| 3 | 99.3 | 99.999 | 58 | 58.4 |
| 4 | 83.1 | 99 | 63.1 | 74.8 |
| 5 | 99 | 99.5 | 59.1 | 59.5 |
| 6 | 86.4 |100 | 21.4 | 34.9 |
| 7 | 93.9 | 99.999 | 35.4 | 40.6 |
| 8 | 95.3 | 99.5 | 48.1 | 50.2 |
| 9 | 82.2 | 99.5 | 49.5 | 55 |
| 10 | 98.5 | 99.6 | 14.9 | 14.1 |
| 11 | 99.6 | 99.9 | 24.8 | 24.9 |
| 12 | 99.5 | 99.999 | 62.4 | 62.8 |
| 13 | 92.4 | 97.5 | 51.6 | 54.6 |
| 14 | 99.3 |100 | 48.6 | 48.6 |
+------+--------+--------+---------+---------+
As shown in the table, remote LFA provides close to 100% prefix
protection against link failure in 11 of the 14 topologies studied
and provides a significant improvement in two of the remaining three
cases. Note that in an MPLS network, the tunnels to the PQ nodes are
always present as a property of an LDP-based deployment.
In the small number of cases where there is no intersection between
the (extended) P-space and the Q-space, a number of solutions to
providing a suitable path between such disjoint regions in the
network have been discussed in the working group. For example, an
explicitly routed LSP between P and Q might be set up using RSVP-TE
or using Segment Routing [SEGMENT-ROUTING]. Such extended repair
methods are outside the scope of this document.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
10. Management and Operational Considerations
The management of LFA and remote LFA is the subject of ongoing work
within the IETF [LFA-MANAGE], to which the reader is referred.
Management considerations may lead to a preference for the use of a
remote LFA over an available LFA. This preference is a matter for
the network operator and not a matter of protocol correctness.
When the network reconverges, micro-loops [RFC5715] can form due to
transient inconsistencies in the forwarding tables of different
routers. If it is determined that micro-loops are a significant
issue in the deployment, then a suitable loop-free convergence
method, such as one of those described in [RFC5715], [RFC6976], or
[ULOOP-DELAY], should be implemented.
11. Historical Note
The basic concepts behind remote LFA were invented in 2002 and were
later included in [IP-FRR], submitted in 2004.
[IP-FRR] targeted a 100% protection coverage and hence included
additional mechanisms on top of the remote LFA concept. The addition
of these mechanisms made the proposal very complex and
computationally intensive, and it was therefore not pursued as a
working group item.
As explained in [RFC6571], the purpose of the LFA FRR technology is
not to provide coverage at any cost. A solution for this already
exists with MPLS-TE FRR. MPLS-TE FRR is a mature technology that is
able to provide protection in any topology thanks to the explicit
routing capability of MPLS-TE.
The purpose of LFA FRR technology is to provide for a simple FRR
solution when such a solution is possible. The first step along this
simplicity approach was "local" LFA [RFC5286]. This specification of
"remote LFA" is a natural second step.
12. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC5286] also apply.
Targeted LDP sessions and MPLS tunnels are normal features of an MPLS
network, and their use in this application raises no additional
security concerns.
IP repair tunnel endpoints (where used) SHOULD be assigned from a set
of addresses that are not reachable from outside the routing domain;
this would prevent their use as an attack vector.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
Other than OAM traffic used to verify the correct operation of a
repair tunnel, only traffic that is being protected as a result of a
link failure is placed in a repair tunnel. The repair tunnel MUST
NOT be advertised by the routing protocol as a link that may be used
to carry normal user traffic or routing protocol traffic.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed. and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification for
IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,
September 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC5714] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "IP Fast Reroute Framework", RFC
5714, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5714>.
13.2. Informative References
[IP-FRR] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., and M. Shand, "IP
Fast Reroute using tunnels", Work in Progress,
draft-bryant-ipfrr-tunnels-03, November 2007.
[ISOCORE2010]
So, N., Lin, T., and C. Chen, "LFA (Loop Free Alternates)
Case Studies in Verizon's LDP Network", 13th Annual MPLS
Conference, 2010.
[LFA-MANAGE]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Raza, K.,
Horneffer, M., and P. Sarkar, "Operational management of
Loop Free Alternates", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtgwg-
lfa-manageability-08, March 2015.
[NODE-PROTECTION]
Sarkar, P., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Bowers, C., Litkowski,
S., and H. Raghuveer, "Remote-LFA Node Protection and
Manageability", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-
node-protection-01, December 2014.
[OSPF-RI] Xu, X., Chunduri, U., and M. Bhatia, "Carrying Routable IP
Addresses in OSPF RI LSA", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-
ospf-routable-ip-address-02, April 2015.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
[RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1195>.
[RFC1701] Hanks, S., Li, T., Farinacci, D., and P. Traina, "Generic
Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 1701, October 1994,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1701>.
[RFC1853] Simpson, W., "IP in IP Tunneling", RFC 1853, October 1995,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1853>.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5305>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5715] Shand, M. and S. Bryant, "A Framework for Loop-Free
Convergence", RFC 5715, January 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5715>.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, February 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6119>.
[RFC6571] Filsfils, C., Ed., Francois, P., Ed., Shand, M., Decraene,
B., Uttaro, J., Leymann, N., and M. Horneffer, "Loop-Free
Alternate (LFA) Applicability in Service Provider (SP)
Networks", RFC 6571, June 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6571>.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6976>.
[RFC6987] Retana, A., Nguyen, L., Zinin, A., White, R., and D.
McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 6987,
September 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6987>.
[SEGMENT-ROUTING]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Tantsura, J.,
and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing Architecture", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-01, February
2015.
[ULOOP-DELAY]
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and P.
Francois, "Microloop prevention by introducing a local
convergence delay", Work in Progress, draft-litkowski-
rtgwg-uloop-delay-03, February 2014.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Levente Csikor and Chris Bowers for their
contribution to the cost-based algorithm text. The authors thank
Alia Atlas, Ross Callon, Stephane Litkowski, Bharath R, Pushpasis
Sarkar, and Adrian Farrel for their review of this document.
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 7490 Remote LFA FRR April 2015
Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
9-11 New Square,
Bedfont Lakes,
Feltham,
Middlesex TW14 8HA
United Kingdom
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems
De Kleetlaan 6a
1831 Diegem
Belgium
EMail: cfilsfil@cisco.com
Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
EMail: sprevidi@cisco.com
Mike Shand
Independent Contributor
EMail: imc.shand@gmail.com
Ning So
Vinci Systems
EMail: ningso@vinci-systems.com
Bryant, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]