⌕ Поиск по атласу

IETF · RFC · RFC8518

RFC8518 · Selection of Loop-Free Alternates for Multi-Homed Prefixes

Selection of Loop-Free Alternates for Multi-Homed Prefixes

Deployment experience gained from implementing algorithms to determine Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) for multi-homed prefixes (MHPs) has revealed some avenues for potential improvement. This document provides explicit inequalities that can be used to evaluate neighbors as potential alternates for MHPs. It also provides detailed criteria for evaluating potential alternates for external prefixes advertised by OSPF ASBRs. This document updates Section 6 of RFC 5286 by expanding some of the routing aspects.

Официальная английская аннотация

Deployment experience gained from implementing algorithms to determine Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) for multi-homed prefixes (MHPs) has revealed some avenues for potential improvement. This document provides explicit inequalities that can be used to evaluate neighbors as potential alternates for MHPs. It also provides detailed criteria for evaluating potential alternates for external prefixes advertised by OSPF ASBRs. This document updates Section 6 of RFC 5286 by expanding some of the routing aspects.

Связи документа

updates: RFC5286

Официальный источник · 2019-03-01

Полные импортированные сведения карточки
{
  "id": "RFC8518",
  "number": 8518,
  "title_en": "Selection of Loop-Free Alternates for Multi-Homed Prefixes",
  "title_ru": "",
  "summary_ru": "",
  "purpose_ru": "",
  "use_ru": "",
  "full_translation_path": "",
  "full_translation_checked_at": "",
  "full_translation_source_sha256": "",
  "architect_note_ru": "",
  "topics_ru": [],
  "translation_state": "not_prepared",
  "verification_level": "not_prepared",
  "verification_level_ru": "Русская выжимка не подготовлена",
  "verification_note_ru": "",
  "abstract_en": "Deployment experience gained from implementing algorithms to determine Loop-Free Alternates (LFAs) for multi-homed prefixes (MHPs) has revealed some avenues for potential improvement. This document provides explicit inequalities that can be used to evaluate neighbors as potential alternates for MHPs. It also provides detailed criteria for evaluating potential alternates for external prefixes advertised by OSPF ASBRs. This document updates Section 6 of RFC 5286 by expanding some of the routing aspects.",
  "authors": [
    "P. Sarkar",
    "U. Chunduri",
    "S. Hegde",
    "J. Tantsura",
    "H. Gredler"
  ],
  "organizations": [],
  "publication_date": "2019-03-01",
  "current_status": "PROPOSED STANDARD",
  "current_status_ru": "Предлагаемый стандарт",
  "publication_status": "PROPOSED STANDARD",
  "publication_status_ru": "Предлагаемый стандарт",
  "lifecycle": "active",
  "lifecycle_ru": "Действующий",
  "stream": "IETF",
  "stream_ru": "IETF",
  "area": "rtg",
  "area_ru": "Маршрутизация",
  "working_group": "rtgwg",
  "source_draft": "draft-ietf-rtgwg-multihomed-prefix-lfa-09",
  "page_count": 20,
  "doi": "10.17487/RFC8518",
  "keywords": [
    "LFA",
    "Multi-homed Prefix",
    "IGP"
  ],
  "formats": [
    "TXT",
    "HTML"
  ],
  "relations": {
    "obsoletes": [],
    "obsoleted_by": [],
    "updates": [
      "RFC5286"
    ],
    "updated_by": [],
    "is_also": [],
    "see_also": []
  },
  "links": {
    "info": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8518/",
    "html": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8518.html",
    "txt": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8518.txt",
    "datatracker": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8518/"
  }
}