Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
RFC 8102

Document Type RFC - Proposed Standard (March 2017; No errata)
Last updated 2017-03-09
Replaces draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection
Stream IETF
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication Jul 2015
Document shepherd Jon Mitchell
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2016-11-17)
IESG IESG state RFC 8102 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Alia Atlas
Send notices to "Jon Mitchell" <jrmitche@puck.nether.net>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state No IC
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                    P. Sarkar, Ed.
Request for Comments: 8102                                  Arrcus, Inc.
Category: Standards Track                                       S. Hegde
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                C. Bowers
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                              H. Gredler
                                                           RtBrick, Inc.
                                                            S. Litkowski
                                                                  Orange
                                                              March 2017

              Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability

Abstract

   The loop-free alternates (LFAs) computed following the current
   remote-LFA specification guarantees only link protection.  The
   resulting remote-LFA next hops (also called "PQ-nodes") may not
   guarantee node protection for all destinations being protected by it.

   This document describes an extension to the remote-loop-free-based IP
   fast reroute mechanisms that specifies procedures for determining
   whether or not a given PQ-node provides node protection for a
   specific destination.  The document also shows how the same procedure
   can be utilized for the collection of complete characteristics for
   alternate paths.  Knowledge about the characteristics of all
   alternate paths is a precursor to applying the operator-defined
   policy for eliminating paths not fitting the constraints.

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 7841.

   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/rfc8102.

Sarkar, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 1]
RFC 8102         R-LFA Node Protection and Manageability      March 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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.

Sarkar, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 2]
RFC 8102         R-LFA Node Protection and Manageability      March 2017

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Node Protection with Remote-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.2.  Additional Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . . . .   7
       2.2.3.  Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.4.  Link-Protecting PQ-Space  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.5.  Candidate Node-Protecting PQ-Space  . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.2.6.  Cost-Based Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
         2.2.6.1.  Link-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . .   9
         2.2.6.2.  Node-Protecting Extended P-Space  . . . . . . . .   9
         2.2.6.3.  Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.3.  Computing Node-Protecting R-LFA Path  . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.1.  Computing Candidate Node-Protecting PQ-Nodes for
               Primary Next Hops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       2.3.2.  Computing Node-Protecting Paths from PQ-Nodes to
               Destinations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.3.3.  Computing Node-Protecting R-LFA Paths for
               Destinations with Multiple Primary Next-Hop Nodes . .  14
Show full document text