RFC 5286: Basic Specification for IP Fast Reroute: Loop-Free Alternates
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes the use of loop-free alternates to provide local protection for unicast traffic in pure IP and MPLS/LDP networks in the event of a single failure, whether link, node, or shared risk link group (SRLG). The goal of this technology is to reduce the packet loss that happens while routers converge after a topology change due to a failure. Rapid failure repair is achieved through use of precalculated backup next-hops that are loop-free and safe to use until the distributed network convergence process completes. This simple approach does not require any support from other routers. The extent to which this goal can be met by this specification is dependent on the topology of the network. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5286
- Published
- September 2008
- Authors
- A. Atlas; A. Zinin
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 31
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 8518
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7811An Algorithm for Computing IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)Current
June 2016
- RFC 7812An Architecture for IP/LDP Fast Reroute Using Maximally Redundant Trees (MRT-FRR)Current
June 2016
- RFC 9855Topology Independent Fast Reroute Using Segment RoutingCurrent
October 2025
- RFC 7916Operational Management of Loop-Free AlternatesCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 5304IS-IS Cryptographic AuthenticationUpdated
October 2008
- RFC 5306Restart Signaling for IS-ISObsoleted
October 2008
- RFC 5444Generalized Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET) Packet/Message FormatUpdated
February 2009
- RFC 4750OSPF Version 2 Management Information BaseCurrent
December 2006
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?