[rfc-dist] RFC 4561 on Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object

rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
Thu Jun 15 17:43:53 PDT 2006


A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.

        
        RFC 4561

        Title:      Definition of a Record Route 
                    Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object 
        Author:     J.-P. Vasseur, Ed.,
                    Z. Ali, S. Sivabalan
        Status:     Standards Track
        Date:       June 2006
        Mailbox:    jpv at cisco.com, 
                    zali at cisco.com, 
                    msiva at cisco.com
        Pages:      10
        Characters: 19362
        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None

        I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-mpls-nodeid-subobject-07.txt

        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4561.txt

In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address
is required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a
backup tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering
Label Switched Path (TE LSP) on a downstream Label Switching Router
(LSR).  However, existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to
find an MP address in multi-domain routing networks where a domain is
defined as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous
System (AS).  Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot be 
used in order to protect inter-domain TE LSPs from a failure of an Area
Border Router (ABR) or Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR).  This
document specifies the use of existing Record Route Object (RRO) IPv4
and IPv6 sub-objects (with a new flag defined) thus defining the
node-id sub-object in order to solve this issue.  The MPLS Fast Reroute
mechanism mentioned in this document refers to the "Facility backup"
MPLS TE Fast Reroute method.  [STANDARDS TRACK]

This document is a product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching
Working Group of the IETF.

This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.

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 
Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization 
state and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is 
unlimited.

This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
should be sent to IETF-REQUEST at IETF.ORG.  Requests to be
added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST at RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
an EMAIL message to rfc-info at RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body 

help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:

        To: rfc-info at RFC-EDITOR.ORG
        Subject: getting rfcs

        help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager at RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Unless
specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
unlimited distribution.

Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
RFC-EDITOR at RFC-EDITOR.ORG.  Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
Authors, for further information.


Joyce K. Reynolds and Sandy Ginoza
USC/Information Sciences Institute

...




More information about the rfc-dist mailing list