< draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-04.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05.txt >
	skipping to change at page 1, line 16 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 16 ¶
	Expires: August 13, 2015 E. Rosen		Expires: August 13, 2015 E. Rosen
	A. Atlas		A. Atlas
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	J. Tantsura		J. Tantsura
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	Q. Zhao		Q. Zhao
	Huawei Technology		Huawei Technology
	February 9, 2015		February 9, 2015
	mLDP Node Protection		mLDP Node Protection
	draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-04		draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-node-protection-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document describes procedures to support node protection for		This document describes procedures to support node protection for
	Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths		Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
	(MP LSPs) that has been built by "Multipoint Label Distribution		(MP LSPs) that has been built by "Multipoint Label Distribution
	Protocol"(mLDP). In order to protect a node N, the Point of Local		Protocol"(mLDP). In order to protect a node N, the Point of Local
	Repair (PLR) LSR of N must learn the Merge Point (MPT) LSR(s) of node		Repair (PLR) LSR of N must learn the Merge Point (MPT) LSR(s) of node
	N such that traffic can be redirected to them in case node N fails.		N such that traffic can be redirected to them in case node N fails.
	Redirecting the traffic around the failed node N depends on existing		Redirecting the traffic around the failed node N depends on existing
	skipping to change at page 7, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 38 ¶
	Along with the PLR MP Status a MP FEC TLV MUST be included in the LDP		Along with the PLR MP Status a MP FEC TLV MUST be included in the LDP
	Notification message so that a receiver is able to associate the PLR		Notification message so that a receiver is able to associate the PLR
	Status with the MP LSP.		Status with the MP LSP.
	3. Using the tLDP session		3. Using the tLDP session
	The receipt of a PLR MP Status (with PLR addresses) for a MP LSP on a		The receipt of a PLR MP Status (with PLR addresses) for a MP LSP on a
	receiving LSR makes it an MPT for node protection. If not already		receiving LSR makes it an MPT for node protection. If not already
	established, the MPT LSR MUST establish a tLDP session with all of		established, the MPT LSR MUST establish a tLDP session with all of
	the learned PLR addresses using the procedures as documented in		the learned PLR addresses using the procedures as documented in
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp].		[RFC7060].
	Using Figure 1 as the reference topology, let us assume that both		Using Figure 1 as the reference topology, let us assume that both
	LSR2 and LSR3 are MPTs and have established a tLDP session with the		LSR2 and LSR3 are MPTs and have established a tLDP session with the
	PLR being LSR1. Assume that both LSR2 and LSR3 have a FEC <R,X> with		PLR being LSR1. Assume that both LSR2 and LSR3 have a FEC <R,X> with
	a upstream LSR N and label Ln assigned to FEC towards N. The MPTs		a upstream LSR N and label Ln assigned to FEC towards N. The MPTs
	will create a secondary upstream LSR (using the received PLR address)		will create a secondary upstream LSR (using the received PLR address)
	and assigned a Label Lpx to FEC <R,X> towards PLR for it. The MPTs		and assigned a Label Lpx to FEC <R,X> towards PLR for it. The MPTs
	will do that for each PLR address that was learned for the MP LSP.		will do that for each PLR address that was learned for the MP LSP.
	In this example, the MPTs will have a FEC <R,X> with two local labels		In this example, the MPTs will have a FEC <R,X> with two local labels
	associated with it. Ln that was assigned to N via the normal mLDP		associated with it. Ln that was assigned to N via the normal mLDP
	skipping to change at page 15, line 20 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 20 ¶
	Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.		Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
	[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.
	[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.		[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
	Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.		Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.
	[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS		[RFC7060] Napierala, M., Rosen, E., and IJ. Wijnands, "Using LDP
	Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.		Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions", RFC 7060,
			November 2013.
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp]
	Napierala, M. and E. Rosen, "Using LDP Multipoint
	Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions",
	draft-ietf-mpls-targeted-mldp-01 (work in progress),
	January 2013.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute		[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
	Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,		Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
	May 2005.		May 2005.
			[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
			Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)		IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	De kleetlaan 6a		De kleetlaan 6a
	Diegem 1831		Diegem 1831
	Belgium		Belgium
	Email: ice@cisco.com		Email: ice@cisco.com
	Kamran Raza		Kamran Raza
End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	10 lines changed or deleted		8 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/