2014 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2014
DOI: 10.1109/icc.2014.6883473
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Discussion on the combination of Loop-Free Alternates and Maximally Redundant Trees for IP networks Fast Reroute

Abstract: IP Fast Reroute (IP FRR) is the IETF standard for providing fast reaction to failures in IP and MPLS/LDP networks. In the past decade, several IP FRR proposals have been proposed, and among them Loop-Free Alternates (LFA) is the simplest, but it cannot achieve 100% single failure coverage. In contrast, Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) can provide 100% single failure coverage and seems a promising scheme. However, MRT has some drawbacks as it can lead to long backup detours and heavy network congestion. In this … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other mechanisms, although less common, are Multiple Routing Configurations (MRC) [ 11 , 30 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ] and Not-Via Addresses [ 35 , 45 ]. Furthermore, there are tunneling-based mechanisms, such as Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) [ 46 , 47 ], and, finally, IPFRR mechanisms based on alternative trees [ 22 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. IPFRR mechanisms such as Not-Via Addresses, Multiple Routing Configurations and Maximally Redundant Trees can provide protection that is close to 100% of repair coverage [ 26 , 51 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Other mechanisms, although less common, are Multiple Routing Configurations (MRC) [ 11 , 30 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ] and Not-Via Addresses [ 35 , 45 ]. Furthermore, there are tunneling-based mechanisms, such as Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) [ 46 , 47 ], and, finally, IPFRR mechanisms based on alternative trees [ 22 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]. IPFRR mechanisms such as Not-Via Addresses, Multiple Routing Configurations and Maximally Redundant Trees can provide protection that is close to 100% of repair coverage [ 26 , 51 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of existing FRR mechanisms, such as LFA [ 24 , 31 , 62 ], Remote LFA [ 14 ], Directed LFA [ 63 ], ECMP [ 23 ], MRC [ 11 ], and MRT [ 46 , 47 ], calculate an alternative backup route according to link metrics. Alternative routes are usually calculated using a Dijkstra SPF algorithm, which calculates the route path as the minimal total cost of each individual link.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, there are several FRR mechanisms exist based on alternative trees [ 19 , 34 , 35 ]. Amongst them, the maximally redundant trees (MRT) one is the most used [ 36 , 37 ].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reactive FRR mechanisms are not very numerous. They include the innovative multicast repair (M-REP) mechanism [ 36 ] and its enhanced version EM-REP [ 38 ]. The M-REP FRR mechanism uses the multicast [ 39 , 40 , 41 ] routing protocol—protocol independent multicast—dense mode (PIM DM) to flood traffic around failed element and create alternative FRR path.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The RLFA router may be several hops away from the source router S. The RLFA mechanism can provide a higher repair coverage than the basic LFA, but at the cost of higher computational complexity . Another existing, though less common IPFRR mechanisms are Equal‐cost multi‐path (ECMP), Multiple Routing Configurations (MRC), Not‐Via Addresses, tunnel based approaches, Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT) and other spanning tree based IPFRR approaches; we will not discuss these in detail. Some of existing IPFRR mechanisms can provide a high level of repair coverage reaching almost 100% (Not‐Via Addresses, MRC, MRT) .…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%