[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 5286

Network Working Group                                      A. Atlas, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Avici Systems, Inc.
Expires: July 22, 2005                                  January 21, 2005


     Basic Specification for IP Fast-Reroute: Loop-free Alternates
                  draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 22, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   This document describes the use of loop-free alternates to provide
   local protection for IP unicast and/or LDP traffic in the event of a
   single failure, whether link, node or shared risk link group (SRLG).
   The goal of this technology is to reduce the micro-looping that and
   packet loss that happens while routers converge after a topology
   change due to a failure.  When a topology change occurs, a router S
   determines for each prefix an alternate next-hop which can be used if
   the primary next-hop fails.  An acceptable alternate next-hop must be



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   a loop-free alternate, which goes to a neighbor whose shortest path
   to the prefix does not go back through the router S.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1   Failure Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Alternate Next-Hop Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1   Basic Loop-free Condition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.2   Node-Protecting Alternate Next-Hops  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3   Broadcast and NBMA Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4   Interactions with ISIS Overload, RFC 3137 and Costed
           Out Links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.5   Selection Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Using an Alternate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.1   Terminating Use of Alternate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  Requirements on LDP Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Routing Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.1   Multi-Homed Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.2   OSPF External Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3   OSPF Virtual Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4   BGP Next-Hop Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.5   Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17
























Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


1.  Introduction

   Applications for interactive multimedia services such as VoIP and
   pseudo-wires can be very sensitive to traffic loss, such as occurs
   when a link or router in the network fails.  A router's convergence
   time is generally on the order of seconds; the application traffic
   may be sensitive to losses greater than 10s of milliseconds.

   As discussed in [FRAMEWORK], minimizing traffic loss requires a
   mechanism for the router adjacent to a failure to rapidly invoke a
   repair path, which is minimally affected by any subsequent
   re-convergence.  This specification describes such a mechanism which
   allows a router whose local link has failed to forward traffic to a
   pre-computed alternate until the router installs the new primary
   next-hops based upon the changed network topology.  The terminology
   used in this specification is given in [FRAMEWORK].

   When a local link fails, a router currently must signal the event to
   its neighbors via the IGP, recompute new primary next-hops for all
   affected prefixes, and only then install those new primary next-hops
   into the forwarding plane.  Until the new primary next-hops are
   installed, traffic directed towards the affected prefixes is
   discarded.  This process can take seconds.

                          <--
                               +-----+
                        /------|  S  |--\
                       /       +-----+   \
                      / 5               8 \
                     /                     \
                   +-----+                +-----+
                   |  E  |                | N_1 |
                   +-----+                +-----+
                      \                     /
                  \    \  4              3 /  /
                   \|   \                 / |/
                   -+    \    +-----+    /  +-
                          \---|  D  |---/
                              +-----+

                        Figure 1: Basic Topology

   The goal of IP Fast-Reroute is to reduce that traffic convergence
   time to 10s of milliseconds by using a pre-computed alternate
   next-hop, in the event that the currently selected primary next-hop
   fails, so that the alternate can be rapidly used when the failure is
   detected.  A network with this feature experiences less traffic loss
   and less micro-looping of packets than a network without IPFRR.



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   There are cases where micro-looping is still a possibility since
   IPFRR coverage varies but in the worst possible situation a network
   with IPFRR is equivalent with respect traffic convergence to a
   network without IPFRR.

   To clarify the behavior of IP Fast-Reroute, consider the simple
   topology in Figure 1.  When router S computes its shortest path to
   router D, router S determines to use the link to router E as its
   primary next-hop.  Without IP Fast-Reroute, that link is the only
   next-hop that router S computes to reach D.  With IP Fast-Reroute, S
   also looks for an alternate next-hop to use.  In this example, S
   would determine that it could send traffic destined to D by using the
   link to router N_1 and therefore S would install the link to N_1 as
   its alternate next-hop.  At some later time, the link between router
   S and router E could fail.  When that link fails, S and E will be the
   first to detect it.  On detecting the failure, S will stop sending
   traffic destined for D towards E via the failed link, and instead
   send the traffic to S's pre-computed alternate next-hop, which is the
   link to N_1, until a new SPF is run and its results are installed.
   As with the primary next-hop, an alternate next-hop is computed for
   each destination.  The process of computing an alternate next-hop
   does not alter the primary next-hop computed via a standard SPF.

   If in the example of Figure 1, the link cost from N_1 to D increased
   to 30 from 3, then N_1 would not be a loop-free alternate, because
   the cost of the path from N_1 to D via S would be 17 while the cost
   from N_1 directly to D would be 30.  In real networks, we may often
   face this situation.  The existence of a suitable loop-free alternate
   next-hop is topology dependent.

   A neighbor N can provide a loop-free alternate if and only if

        Distance_opt(N, D) < Distance_opt(N, S) + Distance_opt(S, D)

                    Equation 1: Loop-Free Criterion

   A sub-set of loop-free alternate are downstream paths which must meet
   the more restrictive condition of

                 Distance_opt(N, D) < Distance_opt(S, D)

                 Equation 2: Downstream Path Criterion


1.1  Failure Scenarios

   The alternate next-hop can protect against a single link failure, a
   single node failure, one or more shared risk link group failure, or a



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   combination of these.  Whenever a failure occurs that is more
   extensive than what the alternate was intended to protect, there is
   the possibility of looping traffic.  The example where a node fails
   when the alternate provided only link protection is illustrated
   below.  If unexpected simultaneous failures occur, then micro-looping
   may occur since the alternates are not pre-computed to avoid the set
   of failed links.

   If only link protection is provided and the node fails, it is
   possible for traffic using the alternates to experience
   micro-looping.  This issue is illustrated in Figure 2.  If Link(S->E)
   fails, then the link-protecting alternate via N will work correctly.
   However, if router E fails, then both S and N will detect a failure
   and switch to their alternates.  In this example, that would cause S
   to redirect the traffic to N and N to redirect the traffic to S and
   thus causing a forwarding loop.  Such a scenario can arise because
   the key assumption, that all other routers in the network are
   forwarding based upon the shortest path, is violated because of a
   second simultaneous correlated failure - another link connected to
   the same primary neighbor.  If there are not other protection
   mechanisms a node failure is still a concern when only using link
   protection.


                                 <@@@
                           @@@>
                    +-----+       +-----+
                    |  S  |-------|  N  |
                    +-+---+   5   +-----+
                      |              |
                      | 5          4 |  |
                   |  |              | \|/
                  \|/ |              |
                      |    +-----+   |
                      +----|  E  |---+
                           +--+--+
                              |
                              |
                              | 10
                              |
                           +--+--+
                           |  D  |
                           +-----+

   Figure 2: Link-Protecting Alternates Causing Loop on Node Failure

   Micro-looping of traffic via the alternates caused when a more
   extensive failure than planned for can be prevented via selection of



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   only downstream paths as alternates.  In Figure 2, S would be able to
   use N as an alternate, but N could not use S; therefore N would have
   no alternate and would discard the traffic, thus avoiding the
   micro-loop.  A micro-loop due to the use of alternates can be avoided
   by using downstream paths because each router in the path to the
   destination must be closer to the destination (according to the
   topology prior to the failures).  Although use of downstream paths
   ensures that the micro-looping via alternates does not occur, such a
   restriction can severely limit the coverage of alternates.

   It may be desirable to find an alternate that can protect against
   other correlated failures (of which node failure is a specific
   instance).  In the general case, these are handled by shared risk
   link groups (SRLGs) where any links in the network can belong to the
   SRLG.  General SRLGs may add unacceptably to the computational
   complexity of finding a loop-free alternate.

   However, a sub-category of SRLGs is of interest and can be applied
   only during the selection of an acceptable alternate.  This
   sub-category is to express correlated failures of links that are
   connected to the same router.  For example, if there are multiple
   logical sub-interfaces on the same physical interface, such as VLANs
   on an Ethernet interface, if multiple interfaces use the same
   physical port because of channelization, or if multiple interfaces
   share a correlated failure because they are on the same line-card.
   This sub-category of SRLGs will be referred to as local-SRLGs.  A
   local-SRLG has all of its member links with one end connected to the
   same router.  Thus, router S could select a loop-free alternate which
   does not use a link in the same local-SRLG as the primary next-hop.
   The local-SRLGs belonging to E can be protected against via
   node-protection; i.e.  picking a loop-free node-protecting alternate.

2.  Alternate Next-Hop Calculation

   To support IP Fast-Reroute, a router must be able to determine if a
   next-hop will provide a loop-free alternate before the router
   installs that next-hop as an alternate.  That next-hop must go to a
   loop-free neighbor.

   To do this computation, a router could run an SPF from the
   perspective of each of its neighbors as well as from its own
   perspective.  This provides the router with all the information
   necessary to test the equations given is this specification.

   To determine SRLG protection, the set of SRLGs that include at least
   one link from the computing router could be determined.  Then when
   the SPF is run from the perspective of a router's neighbor, the SRLGs
   traversed on each shortest path can be tracked.



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


2.1  Basic Loop-free Condition

   Alternate next hops used by implementations following this
   specification MUST conform to at least the loop-freeness condition
   stated above in Equation 1.  Further conditions may be applied when
   determining link-protecting and/or node-protecting alternate
   next-hops as described in Sections Section 2.2 and Section 2.3.

2.2  Node-Protecting Alternate Next-Hops

   For an alternate next-hop to protect against node failure, the
   alternate next-hop MUST be loop-free with respect to the primary
   neighbor E and the destination.

   An alternate will be node-protecting if it doesn't go through the
   same primary neighbor as the primary next-hop.  This is the case if
   Equation 3 is true, where N is the neighbor providing a loop-free
   alternate.

         Distance_opt(N, D) < Distance_opt(N, E) + Distance_opt(E, D)

     Equation 3: Criteria for a Node-Protecting Loop-Free Alternate

   If Distance_opt(N,D) = Distance_opt(N, E) + Distance_opt(E, D), it is
   possible that the neighbor may have equal-cost paths and one of those
   could provide a loop-free node-protecting alternate.  However, the
   decision as to which of equal-cost paths a router will use is a
   router-local decision.  Therefore, a router MUST assume that an
   alternate next-hop does not offer node protection if Equation 3 is
   not met.

2.3  Broadcast and NBMA Links

   The computation for link-protection is a bit more complicated for
   broadcast links.  In an SPF computation, a broadcast links is
   represented as a pseudo-node with links of 0 cost exiting the
   pseudo-node.  For an alternate to be considered link-protecting, it
   must be loop-free with regard to the pseudo-node.  Consider the
   example in Figure 3.












Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


                       +-----+    15
                       |  S  |--------
                       +-----+       |
                          | 5        |
                          |          |
                          | 0        |
                        /----\ 0 5 +-----+
                        | PN |-----|  N  |
                        \----/     +-----+
                           | 0        |
                           |          | 8
                           | 5        |
                        +-----+ 5  +-----+
                        |  E  |----|  D  |
                        +-----+    +-----+

         Figure 3: Loop-Free Alternate that is Link-Protecting

   In Figure 3, N offers a loop-free alternate which is link-protecting.
   If the primary next-hop uses a broadcast link, then an alternate must
   be loop-free with respect to that link's pseudo-node to provide link
   protection.  This requirement is described in Equation 4 below.

              D_opt(N, D) < D_opt(N, pseudo) + D_opt(pseudo, D)

  Equation 4: Loop-Free Link-Protecting Criterion for Broadcast Links

   Because the shortest path from the pseudo-node goes through E, if a
   loop-free alternate from a neighbor N is node-protecting, the
   alternate will also be link-protecting unless the router S can only
   reach the neighbor N via the same pseudo-node.  This can occur
   because S will direct traffic away from the shortest path to use an
   alternate.  Therefore link protection must be considered during the
   alternate selection.

2.4  Interactions with ISIS Overload, RFC 3137 and Costed Out Links

   As described in [RFC3137], there are cases where it is desirable not
   to have a router used as a transit node.  For those cases, it is also
   desirable not to have the router used on an alternate path.

   For computing an alternate, a router MUST not consider diverting from
   the SPF tree along a link whose cost or reverse cost is LSInfinity
   (for OSPF) or the maximum cost (for ISIS) or whose next-hop router
   has the overload bit set (for ISIS).

   In the case of OSPF, if all links from router S to a neighbor N_i
   have a reverse cost of LSInfinity, then router S MUST NOT consider



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   using N_i as an alternate.

   Similarly in the case of ISIS, if N_i has the overload bit set, then
   S MUST NOT consider using N_i as an alternate.

   This preserves the desired behavior of diverting traffic away from a
   router which is following [RFC3137] and it also preserves the desired
   behavior when an operator sets the cost of a link to LSInfinity for
   maintenance which is not permitting traffic across that link unless
   there is no other path.

   If a link or router which is costed out was the only possible
   alternate to protect traffic from a particular router S to a
   particular destination, then there will be no alternate provided for
   protection.

2.5  Selection Procedure

   A router supporting this specification SHOULD select a loop-free
   alternate next-hop for each primary next-hop used for a given prefix.
   A router MAY decide to not use an available loop-free alternate
   next-hop.  A reason for such a decision might be that the loop-free
   alternate next-hop does not provide protection for the failure
   scenario of interest.

   The alternate selection should maximize the coverage of the failure
   cases.

   S SHOULD select a loop-free node-protecting alternate next-hop, if
   one is available.  If S has a choice between a loop-free
   link-protecting node-protecting alternate and a loop-free
   node-protecting alternate which is not link-protecting, S SHOULD
   select a loop-free node-protecting alternate which is also
   link-protecting.  This can occur as explained in Section 2.3.  If S
   has multiple primary next-hops, then S SHOULD select as a loop-free
   alternate either one of the other primary next-hops or a loop-free
   node-protecting alternate.  If no loop-free node-protecting alternate
   is available, then S MAY select a loop-free link-protecting
   alternate.

   Each next-hop can be categorized as to the type of alternate it can
   provide to a particular destination D from router S for a particular
   primary next-hop which goes to a neighbor E.  A next-hop may provide
   one of the following types of paths:







Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   Primary Path - This is the primary next-hop.

   Loop-Free Node-Protecting Alternate - This next-hop satisfies
      Equation 1 and Equation 3.  The path avoids S, S's primary
      neighbor E, and the link from S to E.

   Loop-Free Link-Protecting Alternate -  This next-hop satisfies
      Equation 1 but not Equation 3.  If the primary next-hop uses a
      broadcast link, then this next-hop satisfies Equation 4.

   Unavailable -  This may be because the path goes through S to reach
      D, because the link is costed out, etc.

   An alternate path may also provide none, some or complete SRLG
   protection as well as node and link or link protection.  For
   instance, a link may belong to two SRLGs G1 and G2.  The alternate
   path might avoid other links in G1 but not G2, in which case the
   alternate would only provide partial SRLG protection.

3.  Using an Alternate

   If an alternate next-hop is available, the router SHOULD redirect
   traffic to the alternate next-hop when the primary next-hop has
   failed.

   When a local interface failure is detected, traffic that was destined
   to go out the failed interface must be redirected to the appropriate
   alternate next-hops.  Other failure detection mechanisms which detect
   the loss of a link or a node may also be used to trigger redirection
   of traffic to the appropriate alternate next-hops.  The mechanisms
   available for failure detection are discussed in [FRAMEWORK] and are
   outside the scope of this specification.

   The alternate next-hop MUST be used only for traffic types which are
   routed according to the shortest path.  Multicast traffic is
   specifically out of scope for this specification.

3.1  Terminating Use of Alternate

   A router MUST limit the amount of time an alternate next-hop is used
   after the primary next-hop has become unavailable.  This ensures that
   the router will start using the new primary next-hops.  It ensures
   that all possible transient conditions are removed and the network
   converges according to the deployed routing protocol.

   It is desirable to avoid micro-forwarding loops involving S.  An
   example illustrating the problem is given in Figure 4.  If the link
   from S to E fails, S will use N1 as an alternate and S will compute



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   N2 as the new primary next-hop to reach D.  If S starts using N2 as
   soon as S can compute and install its new primary, it is probable
   that N2 will not have yet installed its new primary next-hop.  This
   would cause traffic to loop and be dropped until N2 has installed the
   new topology.  This can be avoided by S delaying its installation and
   leaving traffic on the alternate next-hop.

                          +-----+
                          |  N2 |--------   |
                          +-----+   1   |  \|/
                              |         |
                              |     +-----+    @@>  +-----+
                              |     |  S  |---------|  N1 |
                           10 |     +-----+   10    +-----+
                              |        |               |
                              |      1 |    |          |
                              |        |   \|/    10   |
                              |     +-----+            |  |
                              |     |  E  |            | \|/
                              |     +-----+            |
                              |        |               |
                              |      1 |  |            |
                              |        | \|/           |
                              |    +-----+             |
                              |----|  D  |--------------
                                   +-----+

    Figure 4: Example where Continued Use of Alternate is Desirable

   This is an example of a case where the new primary is not a loop-free
   alternate before the failure and therefore may have been forwarding
   traffic through S.  This will occur when the path via a previously
   upstream node is shorter than the the path via a loop-free alternate
   neighbor.  In these cases, it is useful to give sufficient time to
   ensure that the new primary neighbor and other nodes on the new
   primary path have switched to the new route.

   If the newly selected primary was loop-free before the failure, then
   it is safe to switch to that new primary immediately; the new primary
   wasn't dependent on the failure and therefore its path will not have
   changed.

   Given that there is an alternate providing appropriate protection and
   while the assumption of a single failure holds, it is safe to delay
   the installation of the new primaries; this will not create
   forwarding loops because the alternate's path to the destination is
   known to not go via S or the failed element and will therefore not be
   affected by the failure.



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   An implementation SHOULD continue to use the alternate next-hops for
   packet forwarding even after the new routing information is available
   based on the new network topology.  The use of the alternate
   next-hops for packet forwarding SHOULD terminate:

   a.  if the new primary next-hop was loop-free prior to the topology
       change, or

   b.  if a configured hold-down, which represents a worst-case bound on
       the length of the network convergence transition, has expired, or

   c.  if notification of an unrelated topological change in the network
       is received.


4.  Requirements on LDP Mode

   Since LDP traffic will follow the path specified by the IGP, it is
   also possible for the LDP traffic to follow the loop-free alternates
   indicated by the IGP.  To do so, it is necessary for LDP to have the
   appropriate labels available for the alternate so that the
   appropriate out-segments can be installed in the forwarding plane
   before the failure occurs.

   This means that a Label Switched Router (LSR) running LDP must
   distribute its labels for the FECs it can provide to all its
   neighbors, regardless of whether or not they are upstream.
   Additionally, LDP must be acting in liberal label retention mode so
   that the labels which correspond to neighbors that aren't currently
   the primary neighbor are stored.  Similarly, LDP should be in
   downstream unsolicited mode, so that the labels for the FEC are
   distributed other than along the SPT.

   If these requirements are met, then LDP can use the loop-free
   alternates without requiring any targeted sessions or signaling
   extensions for this purpose.

5.  Routing Aspects

5.1  Multi-Homed Prefixes

   An SPF-like computation is run for each topology, which corresponds
   to a particular OSPF area or ISIS level.  The IGP needs to determine
   loop-free alternates to multi-homed routes.  Multi-homed routes occur
   for routes obtained from outside the routing domain by multiple
   routers, for subnets on links where the subnet is announced from
   multiple ends of the link, and for routes advertised by multiple
   routers to provide resiliency.



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   Figure 5 demonstrates such a topology.  In this example, the shortest
   path to reach the prefix p is via E.  The prefix p will have the link
   to E as its primary next-hop.  If the alternate next-hop for the
   prefix p is simply inherited from the router advertising it on the
   shortest path to p, then the prefix p's alternate next-hop would be
   the link to C.  This would provide link protection, but not the node
   protection that is possible via A.


                      5   +---+  4   +---+  5  +---+
                    ------| S |------| A |-----| B |
                    |     +---+      +---+     +---+
                    |       |                    |
                    |     5 |                  5 |
                    |       |                    |
                  +---+ 5 +---+   5       7    +---+
                  | C |---| E |------ p -------| F |
                  +---+   +---+                +---+

                      Figure 5: Multi-homed prefix

   To determine the best protection possible, the prefix p can be
   treated in the SPF computations as a node with uni-directional links
   to it from those routers that have advertised the prefix.  Such a
   node need never have its links explored, as it has no out-going
   links.

   If there exist multiple multi-homed prefixes exist that share the
   same connectivity and the difference in metrics to those routers,
   then a single node can be used to represent the set.  For instance,
   if in Figure 5 there were another prefix X that was connected to E
   with a metric of 1 and to F with a metric of 3, then that prefix X
   could use the same alternate next-hop as was computed for prefix p.

   A router SHOULD compute the alternate next-hop for an IGP multi-homed
   prefix by considering alternate paths via all routers that have
   announced that prefix.

5.2  OSPF External Routing

   An additional complication comes from forwarding addresses, where an
   ASBR uses a forwarding address to indicate to all routers in the
   Autonomous System to use the specified address instead of going
   through the ASBR.  When a forwarding address has been indicated, all
   routers in the topology calculate the shortest path to the link
   specified in the external LSA.  In this case, the alternate next-hop
   should be computed by selecting among the alternate paths to the
   forwarding link(s) instead of among alternate paths to the ASBR.



Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


5.3  OSPF Virtual Links

   OSPF virtual links are used to connect two disjoint backbone areas
   using a transit area.  A virtual link is configured at the border
   routers of the disjoint area.  If router S is itself an ABR or one of
   the endpoints of the disjoint area, then router S must resolve its
   paths to the destination on the other side of the disjoint area by
   using the summary links in the transit area and using the closest ABR
   summarizing them into the transit area.  This means that the data
   path may diverge from the virtual neighbor's control path.  An ABR's
   primary and alternate next-hops are calculated by S on the transit
   area.

   A virtual link MUST NOT be used as an alternate next-hop.

5.4  BGP Next-Hop Synchronization

   Typically BGP prefixes are advertised with AS exit routers router-id,
   and AS exit routers are reached by means of IGP routes.  BGP resolves
   its advertised next-hop to the immediate next-hop by potential
   recursive lookups in the routing database.  IP Fast-Reroute computes
   the alternate next-hops to all IGP destinations, which include
   alternate next-hops to the AS exit router's router-id.  BGP simply
   inherits the alternate next-hop from IGP.  The BGP decision process
   is unaltered; BGP continues to use the IGP optimal distance to find
   the nearest exit router.  MBGP routes do not need to copy the
   alternate next hops.

   It is possible to provide ASBR protection if BGP selected a set of
   IGP next-hops and allowed the IGP to determine the primary and
   alternate next-hops as if the BGP route were a multi-homed prefix.
   This is for future study.

5.5  Multicast Considerations

   Multicast traffic is out of scope for this specification of IP
   Fast-Reroute.  The alternate next-hops SHOULD not used for multi-cast
   RPF checks.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security issues.  The
   mechanisms described in this document depend upon the network
   topology distributed via an IGP, such as OSPF or ISIS.  It is
   dependent upon the security associated with those protocols.






Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


7  References

   [FRAMEWORK]
              Shand, M., "IP Fast Reroute Framework",
              draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-framework-02.txt (work in
              progress), October 2004.

   [RFC3036]  Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and
              B. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.

   [RFC3137]  Retana, A., Nguyen, L., White, R., Zinin, A. and D.
              McPherson, "OSPF Stub Router Advertisement", RFC 3137,
              June 2001.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.


Authors' Addresses

   Alia K. Atlas (editor)
   Avici Systems, Inc.
   101 Billerica Avenue
   N. Billerica, MA  01862
   USA

   Phone: +1 978 964 2070
   EMail: aatlas@avici.com


   Raveendra Torvi
   Avici Systems, Inc.
   101 Billerica Avenue
   N. Billerica, MA  01862
   USA

   Phone: +1 978 964 2026
   EMail: rtorvi@avici.com












Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


   Gagan Choudhury
   AT&T
   200 Laurel Avenue, Room D5-3C21
   Middletown, NJ  07748
   USA

   Phone: +1 732 420-3721
   EMail: gchoudhury@att.com


   Christian Martin
   Verizon
   1880 Campus Commons Drive
   Reston, VA  20191
   USA


   Brent Imhoff
   LightCore
   14567 North Outer Forty Rd.
   Chesterfield, MO  63017
   USA

   Phone: +1 314 880 1851
   EMail: brent@lightcore.net


   Don Fedyk
   Nortel Networks
   600 Technology Park
   Billerica, MA  01821
   USA

   Phone: +1 978 288 3041
   EMail: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
















Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ipfrr-spec-base-02.txt   January 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Atlas, et al.            Expires July 22, 2005                 [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/