< draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-02.txt		draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03.txt >
	Routing Area Working Group P. Sarkar, Ed.		Routing Area Working Group P. Sarkar, Ed.
	Internet-Draft H. Gredler		Internet-Draft H. Gredler
	Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde		Intended status: Standards Track S. Hegde
	Expires: May 22, 2014 H. Raghuveer		Expires: June 23, 2014 H. Raghuveer
	C. Bowers		C. Bowers
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	S. Litkowski		S. Litkowski
	Orange		Orange
	November 18, 2013		December 20, 2013
	Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability		Remote-LFA Node Protection and Manageability
	draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-02		draft-psarkar-rtgwg-rlfa-node-protection-03
	Abstract		Abstract
	The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA		The loop-free alternates computed following the current Remote-LFA
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] specification gaurantees only link-		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] specification gaurantees only link-
	protection. The resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-		protection. The resulting Remote-LFA nexthops (also called PQ-
	nodes), may not gaurantee node-protection for all destinations being		nodes), may not gaurantee node-protection for all destinations being
	protected by it.		protected by it.
	This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node		This document describes procedures for determining if a given PQ-node
	skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 7 ¶
	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 May 22, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 23, 2014.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 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 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 33 ¶
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Node Protection with Remote-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Node Protection with Remote-LFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Few Additional Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2. Few Additional Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2.1. Link-Protecting Extended P-Space . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.2.1. Link-Protecting Extended P-Space . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2.2. Node-Protecting Extended P-Space . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.2.2. Node-Protecting Extended P-Space . . . . . . . . . . 6
	2.2.3. Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2.3. Q-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.2.4. Link-Protecting PQ Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2.4. Link-Protecting PQ Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.2.5. Candidate Node-Protecting PQ Space . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2.5. Candidate Node-Protecting PQ Space . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.3. Computing Node-protecting R-LFA Path . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.3. Computing Node-protecting R-LFA Path . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.3.1. Computing Candidate Node-protecting PQ-Nodes for		2.3.1. Computing Candidate Node-protecting PQ-Nodes for
	Primary nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Primary nexthops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.3.2. Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to		2.3.2. Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to
	destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	2.3.3. Limiting extra computational overhead . . . . . . . . 12		2.3.3. Limiting extra computational overhead . . . . . . . . 12
	3. Manageabilty of Remote-LFA Alternate Paths . . . . . . . . . 12		3. Manageabilty of Remote-LFA Alternate Paths . . . . . . . . . 13
	3.1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		3.1. The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	3.2. The Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		3.2. The Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The Remote-LFA [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] specification provides		The Remote-LFA [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] specification provides
	loop-free alternates that gaurantees only link-protection. The		loop-free alternates that gaurantees only link-protection. The
	resulting Remote-LFA alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-		resulting Remote-LFA alternate nexthops (also referred to as the PQ-
	nodes) may not provide node-protection for all destinations covered		nodes) may not provide node-protection for all destinations covered
	by the same, in case of failure of the primary nexthop node. Neither		by the same, in case of failure of the primary nexthop node. Neither
	does the specification provide a means to determine the same.		does the specification provide a means to determine the same.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 47 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶
	2. Node Protection with Remote-LFA		2. Node Protection with Remote-LFA
	2.1. The Problem		2.1. The Problem
	To better illustrate the problem and the solution proposed in this		To better illustrate the problem and the solution proposed in this
	document the following topology diagram from the Remote-LFA		document the following topology diagram from the Remote-LFA
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] draft is being re-used with slight		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] draft is being re-used with slight
	modification.		modification.
	D1		D1
	/		/
	S-x-E		S-x-E
	/ \		/ \
	N R3--D2		N R3--D2
	\ /		\ /
	R1---R2		R1---R2
	Figure 1: Topology 1		Figure 1: Topology 1
	In the above topology, for all (non-ECMP) destinations reachable via		In the above topology, for all (non-ECMP) destinations reachable via
	the S-E link there is no standard LFA alternate. As per the Remote-		the S-E link there is no standard LFA alternate. As per the Remote-
	LFA [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] alternate specifications node R2		LFA [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa] alternate specifications node R2
	being the only PQ-node for the S-E link provides nexthop for all the		being the only PQ-node for the S-E link provides nexthop for all the
	above destinations. Table 1 below, shows all possible primary and		above destinations. Table 1 below, shows all possible primary and
	Remote-LFA alternate paths for each destination.		Remote-LFA alternate paths for each destination.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶
	protection for destinations E and F. In the event of the node-failure		protection for destinations E and F. In the event of the node-failure
	on primary nexthop E, the alternate path from Remote-LFA nexthop R2		on primary nexthop E, the alternate path from Remote-LFA nexthop R2
	to E and D1 also becomes unavailable. So for a Remote-LFA nexthop to		to E and D1 also becomes unavailable. So for a Remote-LFA nexthop to
	provide node-protection for a given destination, it is mandatory		provide node-protection for a given destination, it is mandatory
	that, the shortest path from the given PQ-node to the given		that, the shortest path from the given PQ-node to the given
	destination MUST not traverse the primary nexthop.		destination MUST not traverse the primary nexthop.
	In another extension of the topology in Figure 1 let us consider an		In another extension of the topology in Figure 1 let us consider an
	additional link between N and E.		additional link between N and E.
	D1		D1
	/		/
	S-x-E		S-x-E
	/ / \		/ / \
	N---+ R3--D2		N---+ R3--D2
	\ /		\ /
	R1---R2		R1---R2
	Figure 2: Topology 2		Figure 2: Topology 2
	In the above topology, the S-E link is no more on any of the shortest		In the above topology, the S-E link is no more on any of the shortest
	paths from N to R3. Hence R3 is also included in both the Extended-P		paths from N to R3. Hence R3 is also included in both the Extended-P
	space and PQ space of E (w.r.t S-E link). Table 2 below, shows all		space and PQ space of E (w.r.t S-E link). Table 2 below, shows all
	possible primary and R-LFA alternate paths via PQ-node R3, for each		possible primary and R-LFA alternate paths via PQ-node R3, for each
	destination reachable through the S-E link in the above topology.		destination reachable through the S-E link in the above topology.
	The R-LFA alternate paths via PQ-node R2 remains same as in Table 1.		The R-LFA alternate paths via PQ-node R2 remains same as in Table 1.
	skipping to change at page 6, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 8 ¶
	being protected.		being protected.
	A node Y is in node-protecting extended P-space w.r.t to the node E		A node Y is in node-protecting extended P-space w.r.t to the node E
	being protected, if and only if, there exists atleast one direct		being protected, if and only if, there exists atleast one direct
	neighbor of S, Ni, other than primary nexthop E, that satisfies the		neighbor of S, Ni, other than primary nexthop E, that satisfies the
	following condition.		following condition.
	D_opt(Ni,Y) < D_opt(Ni,E) + D_opt(E,Y)		D_opt(Ni,Y) < D_opt(Ni,E) + D_opt(E,Y)
	Where,		Where,
	D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from R1 to B.		D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
	E : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S		E : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S
	to destination.		to destination.
	Ni : A direct neighbor of S other than primary		Ni : A direct neighbor of S other than primary
	nexthop E.		nexthop E.
	Y : The node being evaluated for node-protecting		Y : The node being evaluated for node-protecting
	extended P-Space.		extended P-Space.
	Figure 4: Node-Protecting Ext-P-Space Condition		Figure 4: Node-Protecting Ext-P-Space Condition
	It must be noted that a node Y satisfying the condition in Figure 4		It must be noted that a node Y satisfying the condition in Figure 4
	skipping to change at page 7, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 41 ¶
	E. This MUST exclude any destination for which there is atleast one		E. This MUST exclude any destination for which there is atleast one
	ECMP path from the node Y to the primary nexthop E traversing the		ECMP path from the node Y to the primary nexthop E traversing the
	link(S-E) being protected.		link(S-E) being protected.
	A node Y is in Q-space w.r.t to the link (S-E) being protected, if		A node Y is in Q-space w.r.t to the link (S-E) being protected, if
	and only if, the following condition is satisfied.		and only if, the following condition is satisfied.
	D_opt(Y,E) < D_opt(S,E) + D_opt(Y,S)		D_opt(Y,E) < D_opt(S,E) + D_opt(Y,S)
	Where,		Where,
	D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from R1 to B.		D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
	E : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S		E : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S
	to destination.		to destination.
	Y : The node being evaluated for Q-Space.		Y : The node being evaluated for Q-Space.
	Figure 5: Q-Space Condition		Figure 5: Q-Space Condition
	2.2.4. Link-Protecting PQ Space		2.2.4. Link-Protecting PQ Space
	A node Y is in link-protecting PQ space w.r.t to the link (S-E) being		A node Y is in link-protecting PQ space w.r.t to the link (S-E) being
	protected, if and only if, Y is present in both link-protecting		protected, if and only if, Y is present in both link-protecting
	skipping to change at page 8, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 15 ¶
	Implementations should run the inequality in Section 2.2.2 Figure 4		Implementations should run the inequality in Section 2.2.2 Figure 4
	for all direct neighbor, other than primary nexthop node E, to		for all direct neighbor, other than primary nexthop node E, to
	determine whether a PQ-node Y is also a candidate node-protecting PQ-		determine whether a PQ-node Y is also a candidate node-protecting PQ-
	node. All of the metrics needed by this inequality would have been		node. All of the metrics needed by this inequality would have been
	already collected from the forward SPFs rooted at each of direct		already collected from the forward SPFs rooted at each of direct
	neighbor S, computed as part of standard LFA [RFC5286]		neighbor S, computed as part of standard LFA [RFC5286]
	implementation. With reference to the topology in Figure 2, Table 3		implementation. With reference to the topology in Figure 2, Table 3
	below shows how the above condition can be used to determine the		below shows how the above condition can be used to determine the
	candidate node-protecting PQ-space for S-E link (primary nexthop E)		candidate node-protecting PQ-space for S-E link (primary nexthop E)
	+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+------------+		+----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
	| PQ-node | Direct | D_opt | D_opt | D_opt | Condition |		| PQ-node | Direct | D_opt | D_opt | D_opt | Condition |
	| (Y) | Nbr (Ni) | (Ni,Y) | (Ni,E) | (E,Y) | Met |		| (Y) | Nbr (Ni) | (Ni,Y) | (Ni,E) | (E,Y) | Met |
	+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+------------+		+----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
	| R2 | N | 2 (N,R2) | 1 (N,E) | 2 | Yes |		| R2 | N | 2 (N,R2) | 1 (N,E) | 2 (E,R2) | Yes |
	| | | | | (E,R2) | |		| R3 | N | 2 (N,R3) | 1 (N,E) | 1 (E,R3) | No |
	| R3 | N | 2 (N,R3) | 1 (N,E) | 1 | No |		+----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+-----------+
	| | | | | (E,R3) | |
	+-----------+----------+----------+----------+---------+------------+
	Table 3: Node-protection evaluation for R-LFA repair tunnel to PQ-		Table 3: Node-protection evaluation for R-LFA repair tunnel to PQ-
	node		node
	As seen in the above Table 3 , R3 does not meet the node-protecting		As seen in the above Table 3 , R3 does not meet the node-protecting
	extended-p-space inequality And so, while R2 is in candidate node-		extended-p-space inequality And so, while R2 is in candidate node-
	protecting PQ space, R3 is not.		protecting PQ space, R3 is not.
	Some SPF implementations may also produce a list of links and nodes		Some SPF implementations may also produce a list of links and nodes
	traversed on the shortest path(s) from a given root to others. In		traversed on the shortest path(s) from a given root to others. In
	skipping to change at page 9, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶
	the standard LFA [RFC5286] computations. So S may re-use the list of		the standard LFA [RFC5286] computations. So S may re-use the list of
	links and nodes collected from the same SPF computations, to decide		links and nodes collected from the same SPF computations, to decide
	whether a PQ-node Y is a candidate node-protecting PQ-node or not. A		whether a PQ-node Y is a candidate node-protecting PQ-node or not. A
	PQ-node Y shall be considered as a node-protecting, if and only if,		PQ-node Y shall be considered as a node-protecting, if and only if,
	there is atleast one direct neighbor of S, other than the primary		there is atleast one direct neighbor of S, other than the primary
	nexthop E, for which, the primary nexthop node E does not exist on		nexthop E, for which, the primary nexthop node E does not exist on
	the list of nodes traversed on any of the shortest path(s) from the		the list of nodes traversed on any of the shortest path(s) from the
	direct neighbor to the PQ-node. Table 4 below is an illustration of		direct neighbor to the PQ-node. Table 4 below is an illustration of
	the mechanism with the topology in Figure 2.		the mechanism with the topology in Figure 2.
	+------------+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+		+---------+---------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
	| PQ-node | Repair Tunnel | Link-Protection | Node-Protection |		| PQ-node | Repair Tunnel | Link-Protection | Node-Protection |
	| | Path(Repairing | | |		| | Path(Repairing | | |
	| | router to PQ- | | |		| | router to PQ-node) | | |
	| | node) | | |		+---------+---------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
	+------------+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+		| R2 | S->N->R1->R2 | Yes | Yes |
	| R2 | S->N->R1->R2 | Yes | Yes |		| R2 | S->E->R3->R2 | No | No |
	| R2 | S->E->R3->R2 | No | No |		| R3 | S->N->E->R3 | Yes | No |
	| R3 | S->N->E->R3 | Yes | No |		+---------+---------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
	+------------+------------------+-----------------+-----------------+
	Table 4: Protection of Remote-LFA tunnel to the PQ-node		Table 4: Protection of Remote-LFA tunnel to the PQ-node
	As seen in the above Table 4 while R2 is candidate node-protecting		As seen in the above Table 4 while R2 is candidate node-protecting
	Remote-LFA nexthop for R3 and G, it is not so for E and F, since the		Remote-LFA nexthop for R3 and G, it is not so for E and F, since the
	primary nexthop E is in the shortest path from R2 to E and F.		primary nexthop E is in the shortest path from R2 to E and F.
	2.3.2. Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to destinations		2.3.2. Computing node-protecting paths from PQ-nodes to destinations
	Once a computing router finds all the candidate node-protecting PQ-		Once a computing router finds all the candidate node-protecting PQ-
	skipping to change at page 10, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 8 ¶
	the shortest paths from the PQ-node to the given destination. After		the shortest paths from the PQ-node to the given destination. After
	running the forward SPF on a PQ-node (from the node-protecting PQ-		running the forward SPF on a PQ-node (from the node-protecting PQ-
	space) the computing router shall run the inequality in Figure 6		space) the computing router shall run the inequality in Figure 6
	below. PQ-nodes that does not qualify the condition for a given		below. PQ-nodes that does not qualify the condition for a given
	destination, does not gaurantee node-protection for the path segment		destination, does not gaurantee node-protection for the path segment
	from the PQ-node to the given destination.		from the PQ-node to the given destination.
	D_opt(Y,D) < D_opt(Y,E) + Distance_opt(E,D)		D_opt(Y,D) < D_opt(Y,E) + Distance_opt(E,D)
	Where,		Where,
	D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from R1 to B.		D_opt(A,B) : Distance on most optimum path from A to B.
	D : The destination node.		D : The destination node.
	E : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S		E : The primary nexthop on shortest path from S
	to destination.		to destination.
	Y : The node-protecting PQ-node being evaluated		Y : The node-protecting PQ-node being evaluated
	Figure 6: Node-Protecting Condition for PQ-node to Destination		Figure 6: Node-Protecting Condition for PQ-node to Destination
	All of the above metric costs except D_opt(Y, D), can be obtained		All of the above metric costs except D_opt(Y, D), can be obtained
	with forward and reverse SPFs with E(the primary nexthop) as the		with forward and reverse SPFs with E(the primary nexthop) as the
	root, run as part of the regular LFA and Remote-LFA implementation.		root, run as part of the regular LFA and Remote-LFA implementation.
	The Distance_opt(Y, D) metric can only be determined by the		The Distance_opt(Y, D) metric can only be determined by the
	additional forward SPF run with PQ-node Y as the root. With		additional forward SPF run with PQ-node Y as the root. With
	reference to the topology in Figure 2, Table 5 below shows how the		reference to the topology in Figure 2, Table 5 below shows how the
	above condition can be used to determine node-protection with node-		above condition can be used to determine node-protection with node-
	protecting PQ-node R2.		protecting PQ-node R2.
	+-------------+------------+---------+---------+--------+-----------+		+-------------+------------+---------+--------+---------+-----------+
	| Destination | Primary-NH | D_opt | D_opt | D_opt | Condition |		| Destination | Primary-NH | D_opt | D_opt | D_opt | Condition |
	| (D) | (E) | (Y, D) | (Y, E) | (E, D) | Met |		| (D) | (E) | (Y, D) | (Y, E) | (E, D) | Met |
	+-------------+------------+---------+---------+--------+-----------+		+-------------+------------+---------+--------+---------+-----------+
	| R3 | E | 1 (C,D) | 2 (C,E) | 1 | Yes |		| R3 | E | 1 | 2 | 1 | Yes |
	| | | | | (E,D) | |		| | | (R2,R3) | (R2,E) | (E,R3) | |
	| E | E | 2 (C,E) | 2 (C,E) | 0 | No |		| E | E | 2 | 2 | 0 (E,E) | No |
	| | | | | (E,E) | |		| | | (R2,E) | (R2,E) | | |
	| D1 | E | 3 (C,F) | 2 (C,E) | 1 | No |		| D1 | E | 3 | 2 | 1 | No |
	| | | | | (E,F) | |		| | | (R2,D1) | (R2,E) | (E,D1) | |
	| D2 | E | 2 (C,G) | 2 (C,E) | 1 | Yes |		| D2 | E | 2 | 2 | 1 | Yes |
	| | | | | (E,G) | |		| | | (R2,D2) | (R2,E) | (E,D2) | |
	+-------------+------------+---------+---------+--------+-----------+		+-------------+------------+---------+--------+---------+-----------+
	Table 5: Node-protection evaluation for R-LFA path segment between		Table 5: Node-protection evaluation for R-LFA path segment between
	PQ-node and destination		PQ-node and destination
	As seen in the above example above, R2 does not meet the node-		As seen in the above example above, R2 does not meet the node-
	protecting inequality for destination E, and F. And so, once again,		protecting inequality for destination E, and F. And so, once again,
	while R2 is a node-protecting Remote-LFA nexthop for R3 and G, it is		while R2 is a node-protecting Remote-LFA nexthop for R3 and G, it is
	not so for E and F.		not so for E and F.
	In SPF implementations that also produce a list of links and nodes		In SPF implementations that also produce a list of links and nodes
	skipping to change at page 14, line 18 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 49 ¶
	Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and K. Raza,		Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., and K. Raza,
	"Operational management of Loop Free Alternates", draft-		"Operational management of Loop Free Alternates", draft-
	ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-00 (work in progress), May		ietf-rtgwg-lfa-manageability-00 (work in progress), May
	2013.		2013.
	[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]		[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa]
	Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and S.		Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and S.
	Ning, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-02		Ning, "Remote LFA FRR", draft-ietf-rtgwg-remote-lfa-02
	(work in progress), May 2013.		(work in progress), May 2013.
	[I-D.litkowski-rtgwg-node-protect-remote-lfa]
	Litkowski, S., "Node protecting remote LFA", draft-
	litkowski-rtgwg-node-protect-remote-lfa-00 (work in
	progress), April 2013.
	[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.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)		Pushpasis Sarkar (editor)
	Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper Networks, Inc.
	Electra, Exora Business Park		Electra, Exora Business Park
	Bangalore, KA 560103		Bangalore, KA 560103
	India		India
End of changes. 17 change blocks.
	71 lines changed or deleted		63 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/