PIM Working Group Y. Liu
Internet Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Informational M. McBride
Expires: 25 March 2025 Futurewei
Z. Zhang
ZTE
J. Xie
Huawei
C. Lin
New H3C Technologies
24 September 2024
Multicast-only Fast Reroute Based on Topology Independent Loop-free
Alternate Fast Reroute
draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-06
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 25 March 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Topology Independent Loop-Free
Alternate (TI-LFA) mechanisms with Multicast Only Fast ReRoute
(MoFRR) for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM). TI-LFA provides
fast reroute protection for unicast traffic in IP networks by
precomputing backup paths that avoid potential failures. By
integrating TI-LFA with MoFRR, this document extends the benefits of
fast reroute mechanisms to multicast traffic, enabling enhanced
resilience and minimized packet loss in multicast networks. The
document outlines the necessary protocol extensions and operational
considerations to implement TI-LFA in conjunction with MoFRR for
PIM, ensuring that multicast traffic is rapidly rerouted in the
event of a failure. This document uses the backup path computed by
TI-LFA through IGP as a secondary Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for
PIM. By using the TI-LFA backup path to send PIM secondary join
messages hop-by-hop, it achieves the generation of a fast reroute
backup path for PIM multicast.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Requirements Language.....................................4
1.2. Terminology...............................................4
2. Problem Statement..............................................4
2.1. LFA for MoFRR.............................................4
2.2. RLFA for MoFRR............................................5
2.3. TI-LFA for MoFRR..........................................5
3. Solution.......................................................6
4. Illustration...................................................8
5. IANA Considerations...........................................11
6. Security Considerations.......................................11
7. References....................................................13
7.1. Normative References.....................................13
7.2. Informative References...................................14
Contributors.....................................................14
Authors' Addresses...............................................15
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
1. Introduction
The increasing deployment of video services has heightened the
importance for network operators to implement solutions that
minimize service disruptions caused by faults in the IP networks
carrying these services. Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR), as
defined in [RFC7431], offers a mechanism to reduce multicast packet
loss in the event of node or link failures by introducing simple
enhancements to multicast routing protocols, such as Protocol
Independent Multicast (PIM). However, the current MoFRR mechanism,
which selects the secondary multicast next hop based solely on the
loop-free alternate fast reroute defined in [RFC7431], has
limitations in certain multicast deployment scenarios.
This document introduces a new mechanism for Multicast-only Fast
Reroute using Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI-LFA) [I-
D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] fast reroute. Unlike
traditional methods, TI-LFA is independent of network topology,
enabling broader coverage across diverse network environments. The
applicability of this mechanism extends to PIM networks, including
scenarios where PIM operates over native IP, as well as public
network multicast trees established by PIM. Additionally, this
document addresses scenarios involving MDT SAFI for Multicast VPN
(MVPN) in [RFC6037] and [RFC6514], covering PIM-SSM Tree, PIM-SM
Tree, and BIDIR-PIM Tree deployments.
The TI-LFA mechanism is designed for standard link-state Interior
Gateway Protocol (IGP) shortest path and Segment Routing (SR)
scenarios. For each destination specified by the IGP in the network,
TI-LFA pre-installs a backup forwarding entry for the protected
destination, ready to be activated upon the detection of a link
failure used to reach that destination. This document leverages the
backup path computed by TI-LFA through the IGP as a secondary
Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) for PIM. By using the TI-LFA backup
path to send PIM secondary join messages hop by hop, it enables the
creation of a fast reroute backup path for PIM multicast.
The protection techniques described in this document are limited to
protecting links and nodes within a link-state IGP area. Protecting
domain exit routers and/or links attached to other routing domains
is beyond the scope of this document. All the Segment Identifiers
(SIDs) required are contained within the Link State Database (LSDB)
of the IGP.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Terminology
This document utilizes the terminology as defined in [RFC7431] and
incorporates the concepts established in [RFC7490]. The definitions
of individual terms are not reiterated within this document.
2. Problem Statement
2.1. LFA for MoFRR
Section 3 of [RFC7431] specifies that the secondary UMH in PIM for
MoFRR is a Loop-Free Alternate (LFA). However, the traditional LFA
mechanism requires that at least one neighbor's next hop to the
destination node is an loop-free next hop. Due to existing
limitations in network deployments, this mechanism only covers
certain network topology environments. In specific network
topologies, the corresponding secondary UMH cannot be computed,
preventing PIM from establishing a standby multicast tree and thus
from implementing MoFRR protection. Consequently, the current MoFRR
functionality in PIM is applicable only in network topologies where
LFA is feasible.
The limitations of the current MoFRR applicability can be
illustrated using the example network depicted in Figure 1. In this
example, the metric of the R1-R4 link is 20, the metric of the R5-R6
link is 100, and the metrics of the other links are 10.
For multicast source S1, the primary path of the PIM join packet is
R3->R2->R1, and the secondary path is R3->R4->R1, which corresponds
to the LFA path of unicast routing. In this scenario, the current
MoFRR operates effectively.
For multicast source S2, the primary path of the PIM join packet is
R3->R2. However, an LFA does not exist. If R3 sends the packet to
R4, R4 will forward it back to R3 because the IGP shortest path from
R4 to R1 is R4->R3->R2. In this case, the current MoFRR cannot
calculate a secondary UMH. Similarly, for multicast source S3, the
current MoFRR mechanism is ineffective.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
[S1]---(R1)----------(R4)
| |
| |
| |
| | ------+------
[S2]---(R2)----------(R3)---[R] Link |Metric
| | ------+------
| | R1-R4 | 20
| | R5-R6 | 100
| | Other | 10
[S3]---(R5)---(R6)---(R7) ------+------
Figure 1: Example Network Topology
2.2. RLFA for MoFRR
The Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA), as defined in [RFC7490],
extends the traditional LFA mechanism, allowing it to accommodate a
broader range of network deployment scenarios by utilizing a tunnel
as an alternate path. The RLFA mechanism requires that there exists
at least one node, denoted as node N, in the network where the fault
node is neither on the path from the source node to node N nor on
the path from node N to the destination node.
[RFC5496] introduces the RPF Vector attribute, which can be included
in the PIM Join packet to ensure that the path is selected based on
the unicast reachability of the RPF Vector. By combining the RLFA
mechanism with the RPF Vector, the secondary multicast tree for
MoFRR can be established, thereby supporting a wider range of
network topologies compared to the current MoFRR implementation with
LFA.
For instance, in the network illustrated in Figure 1, the secondary
path for the PIM Join packet towards multicast source S2 cannot be
computed by the current MoFRR, as previously described. Utilizing
the RLFA mechanism, R3 sends the packet to R4, including an RPF
Vector containing the IP address of R1, which serves as the PQ node
of R3 with respect to the protected R2-R3 link. Subsequently, R4
forwards the packet to R1 via the R1-R4 link, in accordance with the
unicast route associated with the RPF Vector. R1 then continues to
forward the packet to R2, thereby establishing the secondary path,
R3->R4->R1->R2, using MoFRR with RLFA.
2.3. TI-LFA for MoFRR
While RLFA provides enhanced capabilities over LFA, it remains
dependent on the network topology. In the network depicted in Figure
1, the primary path of the PIM Join packet towards multicast source
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
S3 is R3->R2->R5. However, an RLFA path does not exist because the
PQ node of R3 with respect to the protected link R2-R3 is absent. If
R3 sends the packet to R7 with an RPF Vector containing the IP
address of R5, R7 will forward it back to R3, as the IGP shortest
path from R7 to R5 is R7->R3->R2->R5. Similarly, if R3 sends the
packet to R7 with an RPF Vector containing the IP address of R6, R7
will forward it to R6, but R6 will then forward it back to R7, as
the IGP shortest path from R6 to R5 is R6->R7->R3->R2->R5. In this
scenario, MoFRR with RLFA is unable to compute a secondary UMH.
RLFA offers improvements over LFA but still has inherent
limitations. [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] defines a
unicast FRR solution based on the TI-LFA mechanism. The TI-LFA
mechanism allows the expression of a backup path using an explicit
path and imposes no constraints on the network topology, thus
providing a more robust FRR mechanism. Unicast traffic can be
forwarded according to an explicit path list as an alternate path to
protect unicast traffic, achieving full coverage across various
network environments.
The alternate path provided by the TI-LFA mechanism is represented
as a Segment List, which includes the NodeSID of the P-space node
and the Adjacency SIDs of the links between the P-space and Q-space
nodes. PIM can look up the corresponding node IP address in the
unicast route according to the NodeSID and the IP addresses of the
endpoints of the corresponding link in the unicast route according
to the Adjacency SIDs. However, multicast protocol packets cannot be
directly forwarded along the path of the Segment List.
To establish a standby multicast tree, PIM Join messages need to be
transmitted hop-by-hop. However, not all nodes and links on the
unicast alternate path are included in the Segment List. If PIM
protocol packets are transmitted solely in unicast mode, they
effectively traverse the unicast tunnel like unicast traffic and do
not pass through the intermediate nodes of the tunnel. Consequently,
the intermediate nodes on the alternate path cannot forward
multicast traffic because they lack PIM state entries. PIM must
create entries on each device hop-by-hop, generating an incoming
interface and an outgoing interface list, to form a complete end-to-
end multicast tree for forwarding multicast traffic. Therefore,
simply sending PIM Join packets using the Segment List, as done with
unicast traffic, is insufficient to establish a standby multicast
tree.
3. Solution
A secondary Upstream Multicast Hop (UMH) serves as a candidate next-
hop that can be used to reach the root of the multicast tree. In
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
this document, the secondary UMH is derived from unicast routing,
utilizing the Segment List computed by TI-LFA.
In essence, the path information from the Segment List is
incorporated into the PIM packets to guide hop-by-hop Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) selection. The IP address corresponding to the Node
SID can be used as the segmented root node, while the IP addresses
of the interfaces at both endpoints of the link associated with the
Adjacency SID can be directly used as the local upstream interface
and upstream neighbor.
For the PIM protocol, [RFC5496] defines the PIM RPF Vector
attribute, which can carry the node IP address corresponding to the
Node SID. Additionally, [RFC7891] defines the explicit RPF Vector,
which can carry the peer IP address corresponding to the Adjacency
SID.
This document leverages the existing RPF Vector standards, obviating
the need for PIM protocol extensions. This approach allows the
establishment of a standby multicast tree based on the Segment List
calculated by TI-LFA, thereby providing comprehensive MoFRR
protection for multicast services across diverse network
environments.
Consider a Segment List calculated by TI-LFA as (NodeSID(A),
AdjSID(A-B)). Node A belongs to the P space, and node B belongs to
the Q space. The IP address corresponding to NodeSID(A) can be
retrieved from the local link-state database of the IGP protocol and
assumed to be IP-a. Similarly, the IP addresses of the two endpoints
of the link corresponding to AdjSID(A-B) can also be retrieved from
the local link-state database and assumed to be IP-La and IP-Lb.
Within the PIM process, IP-a is treated as the standard RPF Vector
Attribute and added to the PIM Join packet. IP-La is considered the
local address of the incoming interface, and IP-Lb is regarded as
the address of the upstream neighbor. Consequently, IP-Lb can be
included in the PIM Join packet as the explicit RPF Vector
Attribute.
The PIM protocol initially selects the RPF incoming interface and
upstream neighbor towards IP-a and proceeds hop-by-hop to establish
the PIM standby multicast tree until reaching node A. At node A, IP-
Lb is treated as the PIM upstream neighbor. Node A identifies the
incoming interface in the unicast routing table based on IP-Lb, and
IP-Lb is used as the RPF upstream address for the PIM Join packet
directed towards node B.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
Upon receiving the PIM Join packet at node B, the PIM protocol,
finding no additional RPF Vector Attributes, selects the RPF
incoming interface and upstream neighbor towards the multicast
source directly. The protocol then continues hop-by-hop to establish
the PIM standby multicast tree, extending to the router directly
connected to the source.
4. Illustration
This section provides an illustration of MoFRR based on TI-LFA. The
example topology is depicted in Figure 2. The metric for the R3-R4
link is 100, while the metrics for the other links are 10. All link
metrics are bidirectional.
<-----Primary Path--- (S,G) Join
[S]---(R1)---(R2)******(R6)-------[R]
| |
<--- | | |
| | | |
| | (R5) |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| (R3)------(R4) |
| |
--Secondary Path--
Figure 2: Example Topology
The IP addresses and SIDs involved in the MoFRR calculation are
configured as follows:
IPv4 Data Plane (MPLS-SR)
Node IP Address Node SID
R4 IP4-R4 Label-R4
Link IP Address Adjacency SID
R3->R4 IP4-R3-R4 Label-R3-R4
R4->R3 IP4-R4-R3 Label-R4-R3
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
IPv6 Data Plane (SRv6)
Node IP Address Node SID (End)
R4 IP6-R4 SID-R4
Link IP Address Adjacency SID (End.X)
R3->R4 IP6-R3-R4 SID-R3-R4
R4->R3 IP6-R4-R3 SID-R4-R3
The primary path of the PIM Join packet is R6->R2->R1, and the
secondary path is R6->R5->R4->R3->R2->R1. However, the traditional
LFA does not function properly for the secondary path because the
shortest path to R2 from R5 (or from R4) still traverses the R6-R2
link. In this scenario, R6 must calculate the secondary UMH using
the proposed MoFRR method based on TI-LFA.
According to the TI-LFA algorithm, the P-space and Q-space are
illustrated in Figure 3. The TI-LFA repair path consists of the Node
SID of R4 and the Adjacency SID of R4->R3. On the MPLS-SR data
plane, the repair segment list is (Label-R4, Label-R4-R3). On the
SRv6 data plane, the repair segment list is (SID-R4, SID-R4-R3).
........
. .
[S]---(R1)---(R2)******(R6)---[R]
. | . |
. | . +++|++++
. | . + | +
. | . + (R5) +
. | . + | +
. | . + | +
. | . + | +
. (R3)------(R4) +
. . + +
........ ++++++++
Q-Space P-Space
Figure 3: P-Space and Q-Space
In the PIM process, the IP addresses associated with the repair
segment list are retrieved from the IGP link-state database.
On the IPv4 data plane, the Node SID Label-R4 corresponds to IP4-R4,
which will be carried in the RPF Vector Attribute. The Adjacency SID
Label-R4-R3 corresponds to the local address IP4-R4-R3 and the
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
remote peer address IP4-R3-R4, with IP4-R3-R4 carried in the
Explicit RPF Vector Attribute.
On the IPv6 data plane, the End SID SID-R4 corresponds to IP6-R4,
which will be carried in the RPF Vector Attribute. The End.X SID
SID-R4-R3 corresponds to the local address IP6-R4-R3 and the remote
peer address IP6-R3-R4, with IP6-R3-R4 carried in the Explicit RPF
Vector Attribute.
Subsequently, R6 installs the secondary UMH using these RPF Vectors.
+---------+
|Type = 0 |
|IP4-R4 |
+---------+ +---------+
|Type = 4 | |Type = 4 |
|IP4-R3-R4| |IP4-R3-R4|
+---------+ +---------+ No RPF Vector
R6----->R5---->R4------------>R3----->R2---->R1
Figure 4: Forwarding PIM Join Packet along Secondary Path (IPv4)
On the IPv4 data plane, the forwarding of the PIM Join packet along
the secondary path is shown in Figure 4.
R6 inserts two RPF Vector Attributes in the PIM Join packet: IP4-R4
of Type 0 (RPF Vector Attribute) and IP4-R3-R4 of Type 4 (Explicit
RPF Vector Attribute). R6 then forwards the packet along the
secondary path.
When R5 receives the packet, it performs a unicast route lookup of
the first RPF Vector IP4-R4 and sends the packet to R4.
R4, being the owner of IP4-R4, removes the first RPF Vector from the
packet and forwards it according to the next RPF Vector. R4 sends
the packet to R3 based on the next RPF Vector IP4-R3-R4, as its PIM
neighbor R3 corresponds to IP4-R3-R4.
When R3 receives the packet, as the owner of IP4-R3-R4, it removes
the RPF Vector. The packet, now devoid of RPF Vectors, is forwarded
to the source through R3->R2->R1 based on unicast routes.
After the PIM Join packet reaches R1, a secondary multicast tree,
R1->R2->R3->R4->R5->R6, is established hop-by-hop for (S, G) using
MoFRR based on TI-LFA.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
+---------+
|Type = 0 |
|IP6-R4 |
+---------+ +---------+
|Type = 4 | |Type = 4 |
|IP6-R3-R4| |IP6-R3-R4|
+---------+ +---------+ No RPF Vector
R6----->R5---->R4------------>R3----->R2---->R1
Figure 5: Forwarding PIM Join Packet along Secondary Path (IPv6)
On the IPv6 data plane, the forwarding of the PIM Join packet along
the secondary path is illustrated in Figure 5. The procedure is
analogous to that of the IPv4 data plane.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
6. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce additional security concerns. It
does not change the security properties of PIM. For general PIM-SM
protocol security considerations, see [RFC7761]. The security
considerations of LFA, R-LFA, and MoFRR described in [RFC5286],
[RFC7490], and [RFC7431] SHOULD apply to this document.
When deploying TILFA, packets may be sent over nodes and links they
were not transported through before, potentially raising the
following security issues:
1. Spoofing and False Route Advertisements
* Dependencies of LFA/R-LFA/TI-LFA on Routing Information
- LFAs depend on accurate routing information to determine
alternate paths. If an attacker can inject false routing
information (e.g., by spoofing link-state advertisements), it
could cause the network to select suboptimal or malicious
paths for LFAs.
- R-LFA and TI-LFA also depend on accurate routing information,
particularly for determining the tunneling paths or explicit
paths. False route advertisements could mislead the network
into using insecure or compromised paths.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
2. Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) Attacks
* Use of Alternate Paths
- By rerouting traffic through alternate paths, especially
those that traverse multiple hops (as in R-LFA and TI-LFA),
the risk of MitM attacks increases if any of the intermediate
routers on the alternate path are compromised.
- TI-LFA, which uses explicit paths, might expose traffic to
routers that were not originally part of the primary path,
potentially allowing for interception or alteration of the
traffic.
3. Confidentiality and Integrity
* Traffic Encapsulation
- R-LFA and TI-LFA involve encapsulating traffic, which may
expose it to vulnerabilities if the encapsulation mechanisms
are not secure. For instance, if IPsec or another secure
encapsulation method is not used, an attacker might be able
to intercept or alter the traffic in transit.
* Protection of Explicit Paths
- TI-LFA relies on explicit paths that are typically defined
using segment routing. If these paths are not properly
protected, an attacker could manipulate the segment list to
reroute traffic through malicious nodes.
4. Increased Attack Surface
* Extended Topology
- By introducing LFA, R-LFA, and TI-LFA, the network increases
its reliance on additional routers and links, thereby
expanding the potential attack surface. Compromise of any
router in these alternate paths could expose traffic to
unauthorized access or disruption.
To address security issues #1 and #2 mentioned above, control plane
protocols need to provide security protection. To mitigate the risks
associated with false route advertisements and MitM attacks, it is
recommended to use secure routing protocols (e.g., OSPFv3 with
IPsec, ISIS HMAC-SHA256, or PIM with IPsec) that provide
authentication and integrity protection for routing updates.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
To address security issues #3 and #4 mentioned above, these
mechanisms need to run within a trusted network. The security of
LFA, R-LFA, and TI-LFA mechanisms heavily relies on the
trustworthiness of the underlying routing infrastructure. As the
solution described in the document is based on Segment Routing
technology, readers should be aware of the security considerations
related to this technology ([RFC8402]) and its data plane
instantiations ([RFC8660], [RFC8754], and [RFC8986]).
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5286] Atlas, A., Ed., and A. Zinin, Ed., "Basic Specification
for IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates", RFC 5286,DOI
10.17487/RFC5286, September 2008,<http://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc5286>.
[RFC5496] Wijnands, IJ., Boers, A., and E. Rosen, "The Reverse Path
Forwarding (RPF) Vector TLV", RFC 5496, March 2009.
[RFC7431] Karan, A., Filsfils, C., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., and B.
Decraene, "Multicast-Only Fast Reroute", RFC 7431, August
2015.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, April 2015.
[RFC7761] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., Kouvelas,
I.,Parekh, R., Zhang, Z., and L. Zheng, "Protocol
IndependentMulticast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol
Specification(Revised)", RFC 7761, March 2016.
[RFC7891] Asghar, J., Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Krishnaswamy, S., Karan,
A., and V. Arya, "Explicit Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF)
Vector", RFC 7891, June 2016.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, May 2017.
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa] Litkowski, S., Bashandy, A.,
Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Decraene, B., and D. Voyer,
"Topology Independent Fast Reroute using Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-17, work-in-
progress, July 2024.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6037] Rosen, E., Cai, Y., Wijnands, I., "Cisco Systems' Solution
for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", RFC6037, October 2010.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, DOI 10.17487/RFC6514, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6514>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,July
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi,
S.,Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,DOI
10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,<https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy,
J.,Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing
Header(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,DOI
10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,<https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
Contributors
Mengxiao Chen
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: chen.mengxiao@h3c.com
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MoFRR based on TILFA September 2024
Authors' Addresses
Yisong Liu
China Mobile
China
Email: liuyisong@chinamobile.com
Mike McBride
Futurewei Inc.
USA
Email: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com
Zheng(Sandy) Zhang
ZTE Corporation
China
Email: zzhang_ietf@hotmail.com
Jingrong Xie
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: xiejingrong@huawei.com
Changwang Lin
New H3C Technologies
China
Email: linchangwang.04414@h3c.com
Liu, et al. Expires 25 March 2025 [Page 15]