[rfc-dist] RFC 8104 on Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure Protection
rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Thu, 16 March 2017 00:07 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C96012EE45 for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9NxRFi3ES7cY for <ietfarch-rfc-dist-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5A612ECED for <rfc-dist-archive-yuw6Xa6hiena@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4058B8142F; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A70FAB81428; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:ams_util_lib.php
From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20170316000739.A70FAB81428@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:07:39 -0700
Subject: [rfc-dist] RFC 8104 on Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure Protection
X-BeenThere: rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Announcements <rfc-dist.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-dist/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist>, <mailto:rfc-dist-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: drafts-update-ref@iana.org, pals@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-dist <rfc-dist-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 8104
Title: Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure
Protection
Author: Y. Shen, R. Aggarwal,
W. Henderickx, Y. Jiang
Status: Standards Track
Stream: IETF
Date: March 2017
Mailbox: yshen@juniper.net,
raggarwa_1@yahoo.com,
wim.henderickx@nokia.com,
jiangyuanlong@huawei.com
Pages: 43
Characters: 94878
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None
I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pals-endpoint-fast-protection-05.txt
URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8104
DOI: 10.17487/RFC8104
This document specifies a fast mechanism for protecting pseudowires
(PWs) transported by IP/MPLS tunnels against egress endpoint
failures, including egress attachment circuit (AC) failure, egress
provider edge (PE) failure, multi-segment PW terminating PE failure,
and multi-segment PW switching PE failure. Operating on the basis of
multihomed customer edge (CE), redundant PWs, upstream label
assignment, and context-specific label switching, the mechanism
enables local repair to be performed by the router upstream adjacent
to a failure. The router can restore a PW in the order of tens of
milliseconds, by rerouting traffic around the failure to a protector
through a pre-established bypass tunnel. Therefore, the mechanism
can be used to reduce traffic loss before global repair reacts to the
failure and the network converges on the topology changes due to the
failure.
This document is a product of the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services Working Group of the IETF.
This is now a Proposed Standard.
STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official
Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the
standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.
The RFC Editor Team
Association Management Solutions, LLC
_______________________________________________
rfc-dist mailing list
rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
http://www.rfc-editor.org