draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-12.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-13.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 15 skipping to change at page 1, line 15
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde
Expires: July 24, 2017 C. Bowers Expires: July 24, 2017 C. Bowers
Juniper Networks, Inc. Juniper Networks, Inc.
H. Gredler H. Gredler
RtBrick, Inc. RtBrick, Inc.
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
January 20, 2017 January 20, 2017
Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-12 draft-ietf-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-13
Abstract Abstract
The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
specification guarantees only link-protection. The resulting Remote- specification guarantees only link-protection. The resulting Remote-
LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not guarantee node- LFA nexthops (also called PQ-nodes), may not guarantee node-
protection for all destinations being protected by it. protection for all destinations being protected by it.
This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node This document describes an extension to the Remote Loop-Free based IP
provides node-protection for a specific destination or not. The fast reroute mechanisms, that specifes procedures for determining if
document also shows how the same procedure can be utilized for a given PQ-node provides node-protection for a specific destination
collection of complete characteristics for alternate paths. or not. The document also shows how the same procedure can be
Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is utilized for collection of complete characteristics for alternate
paths. Knowledge about the characteristics of all alternate path is
precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not precursory to apply operator defined policy for eliminating paths not
fitting constraints. fitting constraints.
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
 End of changes. 2 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/