[rtgwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-20.txt
internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon, 03 February 2025 02:08 UTC
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org (ietfa.amsl.com [50.223.129.194]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59ECAC19ECBD; Sun, 2 Feb 2025 18:08:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.244.8.188] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2660DC18DB91; Sun, 2 Feb 2025 18:08:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.34.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <173854849678.439.3092653393775367148@dt-datatracker-6f7f8bdd64-25rl2>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2025 18:08:16 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: 4OXBLS3JX5P7G7M5SFEVNEZVQ7K3GUIE
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4OXBLS3JX5P7G7M5SFEVNEZVQ7K3GUIE
X-MailFrom: internet-drafts@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtgwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: rtgwg@ietf.org
Subject: [rtgwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-20.txt
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/3jeQNCQg5NBly302OWHz_tlsNsA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtgwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtgwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtgwg-leave@ietf.org>
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-20.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Routing Area Working Group (RTGWG) WG of
the IETF.
Title: Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing
Authors: Ahmed Bashandy
Stephane Litkowski
Clarence Filsfils
Pierre Francois
Bruno Decraene
Daniel Voyer
Name: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-20.txt
Pages: 27
Dates: 2025-02-02
Abstract:
This document presents Topology Independent Loop-free Alternate Fast
Reroute (TI-LFA), aimed at providing protection of node and adjacency
segments within the Segment Routing (SR) framework. This Fast
Reroute (FRR) behavior builds on proven IP Fast Reroute concepts
being LFAs, remote LFAs (RLFA), and remote LFAs with directed
forwarding (DLFA). It extends these concepts to provide guaranteed
coverage in any two-connected networks using a link-state IGP. An
important aspect of TI-LFA is the FRR path selection approach
establishing protection over the expected post-convergence paths from
the point of local repair, reducing the operational need to control
the tie-breaks among various FRR options.
The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa/
There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-20
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-20
Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
- [rtgwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-rout… internet-drafts
- [rtgwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-… John Scudder
- [rtgwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-… Ahmed Bashandy
- [rtgwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-… Stewart Bryant
- [rtgwg] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment… Stewart Bryant