draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-07.txt   draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-08.txt 
Network Working Group A. Karan Network Working Group A. Karan
Internet-Draft C. Filsfils Internet-Draft C. Filsfils
Intended status: Informational IJ. Wijnands, Ed. Intended status: Informational IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Expires: November 13, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: November 19, 2015 Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Decraene B. Decraene
Orange Orange
May 12, 2015 May 18, 2015
Multicast only Fast Re-Route Multicast only Fast Re-Route
draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-07 draft-ietf-rtgwg-mofrr-08
Abstract Abstract
As IPTV deployments grow in number and size, service providers are As IPTV deployments grow in number and size, service providers are
looking for solutions that minimize the service disruption due to looking for solutions that minimize the service disruption due to
faults in the IP network carrying the packets for these services. faults in the IP network carrying the packets for these services.
This document describes a mechanism for minimizing packet loss in a This document describes a mechanism for minimizing packet loss in a
network when node or link failures occur. Multicast only Fast Re- network when node or link failures occur. Multicast only Fast Re-
Route (MoFRR) works by making simple enhancements to multicast Route (MoFRR) works by making simple enhancements to multicast
routing protocols such as PIM and mLDP. routing protocols such as PIM and mLDP.
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 13, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 23 skipping to change at page 2, line 23
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Basic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Determination of the secondary UMH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Determination of the secondary UMH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. ECMP-mode MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. ECMP-mode MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Non-ECMP-mode MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Non-ECMP-mode MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Upstream Multicast Hop Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Upstream Multicast Hop Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. PIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1. PIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. mLDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. mLDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Detecting Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Detecting Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. MoFRR applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. MoFRR applicability to Dual-Plane Topology . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Dual-Plane Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Other Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. Other Topologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Capacity Planning for MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Capacity Planning for MoFRR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. PE nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. PE nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Other Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. Other Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Different solutions have been developed and deployed to improve Different solutions have been developed and deployed to improve
service guarantees, both for multicast video traffic and Video on service guarantees, both for multicast video traffic and Video on
Demand traffic. Most of these solutions are geared towards finding Demand traffic. Most of these solutions are geared towards finding
an alternate path around one or more failed network elements (link, an alternate path around one or more failed network elements (link,
node, path failures). node, path failures).
This document describes a mechanism for minimizing packet loss in a This document describes a mechanism for minimizing packet loss in a
network when node or link failures occur. Multicast only Fast Re- network when node or link failures occur. Multicast only Fast Re-
Route (MoFRR) works by making simple changes to the way selected Route (MoFRR) works by making simple changes to the way selected
routers use multicast protocols such as PIM and mLDP. No changes to routers use multicast protocols such as PIM and mLDP. No changes to
the protocols themselves are required. With MoFRR, in many cases, the protocols themselves are required. With MoFRR, in many cases,
multicast routing protocols don't necessarily have to depend on or multicast routing protocols don't necessarily have to depend on or
have to wait on unicast routing protocols to detect network failures, have to wait on unicast routing protocols to detect network failures,
see Section 5 see Section 5.
On a Merge Point MoFRR logic determines a primary Upstream Multicast On a Merge Point MoFRR logic determines a primary Upstream Multicast
Hop (UMH) and a secondary UMH and joins the tree via both Hop (UMH) and a secondary UMH and joins the tree via both
simultaneously. Data packets are received over the primary and simultaneously. Data packets are received over the primary and
secondary paths. Only the packets from the primary UMH are accepted secondary paths. Only the packets from the primary UMH are accepted
and forwarded down the tree, the packets from the secondary UMH are and forwarded down the tree, the packets from the secondary UMH are
discarded. The UMH determination is different for PIM and mLDP and discarded. The UMH determination is different for PIM and mLDP and
explained in Section 4. When a failure is detected on the path to explained in Section 4. When a failure is detected on the path to
the primary UMH, the repair occurs by changing the secondary UMH into the primary UMH, the repair occurs by changing the secondary UMH into
the primary and the primary into the secondary. Since the repair is the primary and the primary into the secondary. Since the repair is
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 44
UMH: Upstream Multicast Hop, a candidate next-hop that can be used UMH: Upstream Multicast Hop, a candidate next-hop that can be used
to reach the root of the tree. to reach the root of the tree.
tree: Either a PIM (S,G)/(*,G) tree or a mLDP P2MP or MP2MP LSP. tree: Either a PIM (S,G)/(*,G) tree or a mLDP P2MP or MP2MP LSP.
OIF: Outgoing InterFace, an interface used to forward multicast OIF: Outgoing InterFace, an interface used to forward multicast
packets down the tree towards the receivers. Either a PIM packets down the tree towards the receivers. Either a PIM
(S,G)/(*,G) tree or a mLDP P2MP or MP2MP LSP. (S,G)/(*,G) tree or a mLDP P2MP or MP2MP LSP.
LFA: Loop Free Alternate as defined in [RFC5286] In unicast Fast LFA: Loop Free Alternate as defined in [RFC5286]. In unicast Fast
ReRoute, this is an alternate next-hop which can be used to reach ReRoute, this is an alternate next-hop which can be used to reach
a unicast destination without using the protected link or node. a unicast destination without using the protected link or node.
Merge Point: A router that joins a multicast stream via two Merge Point: A router that joins a multicast stream via two
divergent upstream paths. divergent upstream paths.
RPF: Reverse Path Forwarding. RPF: Reverse Path Forwarding.
RP: Rendezvous Point. RP: Rendezvous Point.
LSR: Label Switched Router. LSR: Label Switched Router.
BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection. BFD: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection.
IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol. IGP: Interior Gateway Protocol.
MVPN: Multicast Virtual Private Networks. MVPN: Multicast Virtual Private Networks.
POP: Point Of Presence, an access point into the network.
2. Basic Overview 2. Basic Overview
The basic idea of MoFRR is for a Merge Point router to join a The basic idea of MoFRR is for a Merge Point router to join a
multicast tree via two divergent upstream paths in order to get multicast tree via two divergent upstream paths in order to get
maximum redundancy. The determination of this alternate upstream is maximum redundancy. The determination of this alternate upstream is
defined in Section 3. defined in Section 3.
In order to maximize robustness against any failure, the two paths In order to maximize robustness against any failure, the two paths
should be as diverse as possible. Ideally, they should not merge should be as diverse as possible. Ideally, they should not merge
upstream. Sometimes the topology guarantees maximal redundancy, upstream. Sometimes the topology guarantees maximal redundancy,
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 42
PE2 to never get deleted as each PE refresh each other via the PE2 to never get deleted as each PE refresh each other via the
secondary path joins (remember that a secondary path join is not secondary path joins (remember that a secondary path join is not
distinguishable from a primary join). distinguishable from a primary join).
4. Upstream Multicast Hop Selection 4. Upstream Multicast Hop Selection
An Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) is a candidate next-hop that can be An Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) is a candidate next-hop that can be
used to reach the root of the tree. This is normally based on used to reach the root of the tree. This is normally based on
unicast routing to find loop free candidate(s). With MoFRR unicast routing to find loop free candidate(s). With MoFRR
procedures we select a primary and a backup UMH. The procedures for procedures we select a primary and a backup UMH. The procedures for
determining the UMH are different for PIM and mLDP. See below; determining the UMH are different for PIM and mLDP.
4.1. PIM 4.1. PIM
The UMH selection in PIM is also known as the Reverse Path Forwarding The UMH selection in PIM is also known as the Reverse Path Forwarding
(RPF) procedure. Based on a unicast route lookup on either the (RPF) procedure. Based on a unicast route lookup on either the
Source address or Rendezvous Point (RP) [RFC4601], an upstream Source address or Rendezvous Point (RP) [RFC4601], an upstream
interface is selected for sending the PIM Joins/Prunes AND accepting interface is selected for sending the PIM Joins/Prunes AND accepting
the multicast packets. The interface the packets are received on is the multicast packets. The interface the packets are received on is
used to pass or fail the RPF check. If packets are received on an used to pass or fail the RPF check. If packets are received on an
interface that was not selected by the RPF procedure, or not the interface that was not selected by the RPF procedure, or not the
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 23
upstream Label Switched Router (LSR) is elected. The upstream LSR upstream Label Switched Router (LSR) is elected. The upstream LSR
that was elected for a Label Switched Path (LSP) gets a unique local that was elected for a Label Switched Path (LSP) gets a unique local
MPLS Label allocated. Multicast packets are only forwarded if the MPLS Label allocated. Multicast packets are only forwarded if the
MPLS label matches the MPLS label that was allocated for that LSPs MPLS label matches the MPLS label that was allocated for that LSPs
(primary) upstream LSR. (primary) upstream LSR.
5. Detecting Failures 5. Detecting Failures
Once the two paths are established, the next step is detecting a Once the two paths are established, the next step is detecting a
failure on the primary path to know when to switch to the backup failure on the primary path to know when to switch to the backup
path. This is a local issue but this section explore some path. This is a local issue but this section explores some
possibilities. possibilities.
The first (and simplest) option is to detect the failure of the local The first (and simplest) option is to detect the failure of the local
interface as it it's done for unicast Fast ReRoute. Detection can be interface as it it's done for unicast Fast ReRoute. Detection can be
performed using the loss of signal or the loss of probing packets performed using the loss of signal or the loss of probing packets
(e.g. BFD). This option can be used in combination with the other (e.g. BFD). This option can be used in combination with the other
options as documented below. Just like for unicast fast reroute, options as documented below. Just like for unicast fast reroute,
50msec switch-over is possible. 50msec switch-over is possible.
A second option consists of comparing the packets received on the A second option consists of comparing the packets received on the
skipping to change at page 7, line 5 skipping to change at page 7, line 7
A fourth option leverages the significant improvements of the IGP A fourth option leverages the significant improvements of the IGP
convergence speed. When the primary path to the source is withdrawn convergence speed. When the primary path to the source is withdrawn
by the IGP, the MoFRR-enabled router switches over to the backup by the IGP, the MoFRR-enabled router switches over to the backup
path, the UMH is changed to the secondary UMH. Since the secondary path, the UMH is changed to the secondary UMH. Since the secondary
path is already in place, and assuming it is disjoint from the path is already in place, and assuming it is disjoint from the
primary path, convergence times would not include the time required primary path, convergence times would not include the time required
to build a new tree and hence are smaller. Sub-second to sub-200msec to build a new tree and hence are smaller. Sub-second to sub-200msec
switch-over should be possible. switch-over should be possible.
6. MoFRR applicability 6. MoFRR applicability to Dual-Plane Topology
MoFRR applicability is topology dependent. The applicability is the MoFRR applicability is topology dependent. The applicability is the
same as LFA FRR which is discussed in [RFC6571]. same as LFA FRR which is discussed in [RFC6571].
The following section will discuss MoFRR applicability to dual-plane The following section will discuss MoFRR applicability to dual-plane
network topologies. network topologies.
6.1. Dual-Plane Topology
MoFRR works best in dual-planes topologies as illustrated in the MoFRR works best in dual-planes topologies as illustrated in the
figures below. MoFRR may be enabled on any router in the network. figures below. MoFRR may be enabled on any router in the network.
In the figures below, MoFRR is shown enabled on the Provider Edge In the figures below, MoFRR is shown enabled on the Provider Edge
(PE) routers to illustrate one way in which the technology may be (PE) routers to illustrate one way in which the technology may be
deployed. deployed.
S S
P / \ P P / \ P
/ \ / \
^ G1 R1 ^ ^ G1 R1 ^
skipping to change at page 10, line 6 skipping to change at page 10, line 6
duplication. This is different from conventional FRR mechanisms duplication. This is different from conventional FRR mechanisms
which often duplicate the capacity requirements when the backup which often duplicate the capacity requirements when the backup
path crosses links/nodes which already carry the primary/normal path crosses links/nodes which already carry the primary/normal
tree and hence twice as much capacity is required. tree and hence twice as much capacity is required.
4. Loop free: the secondary path join is sent on an ECMP disjoint 4. Loop free: the secondary path join is sent on an ECMP disjoint
path. By definition, the neighbor receiving this request is path. By definition, the neighbor receiving this request is
closer to the source and hence will not cause a loop. closer to the source and hence will not cause a loop.
The topology we just analyzed is very frequent and can be modelled as The topology we just analyzed is very frequent and can be modelled as
per Fig2. The PE has two ECMP disjoint paths to the source. Each per FIG2. The PE has two ECMP disjoint paths to the source. Each
ECMP path uses a disjoint plane of the network. ECMP path uses a disjoint plane of the network.
Source Source
/ \ / \
Plane1 Plane2 Plane1 Plane2
| | | |
A1 A2 A1 A2
\ / \ /
PE PE
FIG2. PE is dual-homed to Dual-Plane Backbone FIG2. PE is dual-homed to Dual-Plane Backbone
Another frequent topology is described in Fig 3. PEs are grouped by Another frequent topology is described in FIG3. PEs are grouped by
pairs. In each pair, each PE is connected to a different plane. pairs. In each pair, each PE is connected to a different plane.
Each PE has one single shortest-path to a source (via its connected Each PE has one single shortest-path to a source (via its connected
plane). There is no ECMP like in Fig 2. However, there is clearly a plane). There is no ECMP like in FIG2. However, there is clearly a
way to provide MoFRR benefits as each PE can offer a disjoint way to provide MoFRR benefits as each PE can offer a disjoint
secondary path to the other plane PE (via the disjoint path). secondary path to the other plane PE (via the disjoint path).
MoFRR secondary neighbor selection process needs to be extended in MoFRR secondary neighbor selection process needs to be extended in
this case as one cannot simply rely on using an ECMP path as this case as one cannot simply rely on using an ECMP path as
secondary neighbor. This extension is referred to as non-ecmp secondary neighbor. This extension is referred to as non-ecmp
extension and is described in Section 3.2. extension and is described in Section 3.2.
Source Source
/ \ / \
Plane1 Plane2 Plane1 Plane2
| | | |
A1 A2 A1 A2
| | | |
PE1----PE2 PE1----PE2
FIG3. PEs are connected in pairs to Dual-Plane Backbone FIG3. PEs are connected in pairs to Dual-Plane Backbone
6.2. Other Topologies 7. Other Topologies
As mentioned in section Section 6.1, MoFRR works best in dual-plane As mentioned in section Section 6, MoFRR works best in dual-plane
topologies. If MoFRR is applied to none dual-plane networks, its topologies. If MoFRR is applied to none dual-plane networks, its
possible that the secondary path is effected by the same failure that possible that the secondary path is effected by the same failure that
effected the primary path. In that case, there is no guarentee that effected the primary path. In that case, there is no guarentee that
the backup path will provide an un-interupted traffic flow of packets the backup path will provide an un-interupted traffic flow of packets
without loss or duplication. without loss or duplication.
6.3. Capacity Planning for MoFRR 8. Capacity Planning for MoFRR
The previous section has described two very frequent designs (Fig 2 The previous section has described two very frequent designs (FIG2
and Fig 3) which provide maximum MoFRR benefits. and FIG3) which provide maximum MoFRR benefits.
Designers with topologies different than Fig2 and 3 can still benefit Designers with topologies different than FIG2 and FIG3 can still
from MoFRR thanks to the use of capacity planning tools. benefit from MoFRR thanks to the use of capacity planning tools.
Such tools are able to simulate the ability of each PE to build two Such tools are able to simulate the ability of each PE to build two
disjoint branches of the same tree. This for hundreds of PEs and disjoint branches of the same tree. This for hundreds of PEs and
hundreds of sources. hundreds of sources.
This allows to assess the MoFRR protection coverage of a given This allows to assess the MoFRR protection coverage of a given
network, for a set of sources. network, for a set of sources.
If the protection coverage is deemed insufficient, the designer can If the protection coverage is deemed insufficient, the designer can
use such tool to optimize the topology (add links, change IGP use such tool to optimize the topology (add links, change IGP
metrics). metrics).
6.4. PE nodes 9. PE nodes
Many Service Providers devise their topology such that PEs have Many Service Providers devise their topology such that PEs have
disjoint paths to the multicast sources. MoFRR leverages the disjoint paths to the multicast sources. MoFRR leverages the
existence of these disjoint paths without any PIM or mLDP protocol existence of these disjoint paths without any PIM or mLDP protocol
modification. Interoperability testing is thus not required. In modification. Interoperability testing is thus not required. In
such topologies, MoFRR only needs to be deployed on the PE devices. such topologies, MoFRR only needs to be deployed on the PE devices.
Each PE device can be enabled one by one. Each PE device can be enabled one by one.
6.5. Other Applications 10. Other Applications
While all the examples in this document show the MoFRR applicability While all the examples in this document show the MoFRR applicability
on PE devices, it is clear that MoFRR could be enabled on aggregation on PE devices, it is clear that MoFRR could be enabled on aggregation
or core routers. or core routers.
MoFRR can be popular in Data Center network configurations. With the MoFRR can be popular in Data Center network configurations. With the
advent of lower cost ethernet and increasing port density in routers, advent of lower cost ethernet and increasing port density in routers,
there is more meshed connectivity than ever before. When using a there is more meshed connectivity than ever before. When using a
3-level access, distribution, and core layers in a Data Center, there 3-level access, distribution, and core layers in a Data Center, there
is a lot of inexpensive bandwidth connecting the layers. This will is a lot of inexpensive bandwidth connecting the layers. This will
skipping to change at page 12, line 12 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
duplication of data on any link thereby providing make-before-break duplication of data on any link thereby providing make-before-break
protection at a very small cost. protection at a very small cost.
A MoFRR router only accepts packets from the primary path and A MoFRR router only accepts packets from the primary path and
discards packets from the secondary path. For that reason, discards packets from the secondary path. For that reason,
management applications (like ping and mtrace) will not work when management applications (like ping and mtrace) will not work when
verifying the secondary path. verifying the secondary path.
The MoFRR principle may be applied to MVPNs. The MoFRR principle may be applied to MVPNs.
7. IANA Considerations 11. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA. This document makes no request of IANA.
8. Security Considerations 12. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations for this design other than what There are no security considerations for this design other than what
is already in the main PIM specification [RFC4601] and mLDP is already in the main PIM specification [RFC4601] and mLDP
specification [RFC6388]. specification [RFC6388].
9. Acknowledgments 13. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dave Oran and Alvaro Retana for their review and comments Thanks to Dave Oran and Alvaro Retana for their review and comments
on this document. on this document.
The authors would like to especially acknowledge the contribution The authors would like to especially acknowledge the contribution
from Dino Farinacci, John Zwiebel and Greg Shepherd for the genesis from Dino Farinacci, John Zwiebel and Greg Shepherd for the genesis
of the MoFRR concept. of the MoFRR concept.
10. Contributor Addresses 14. Contributor Addresses
Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order: Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:
Dino Farinacci Dino Farinacci
Email: farinacci@gmail.com Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
Copernicuslaan 50 Copernicuslaan 50
Antwerp 2018 Antwerp 2018
skipping to change at page 13, line 36 skipping to change at page 13, line 36
DE DE
Email: N.Leymann@telekom.de Email: N.Leymann@telekom.de
Jeff Tantsura Jeff Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
300 Holger Way 300 Holger Way
San Jose CA 95134 San Jose CA 95134
USA USA
Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com
11. References 15. References
11.1. Normative References 15.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast [RFC5286] Atlas, A. and A. Zinin, "Basic Specification for IP Fast
Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008. Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286, September 2008.
11.2. Informative References 15.2. Informative References
[RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas,
"Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM):
Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas, [RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to- "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011. Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
43 lines changed or deleted 42 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/