rfc9855v1.txt		rfc9855.txt
	skipping to change at line 427 ¶		skipping to change at line 427 ¶
	need for any coordination or message exchange between the PLR and any		need for any coordination or message exchange between the PLR and any
	other router in the network.		other router in the network.
	The TI-LFA repair path is found by intersecting P(S,X) and Q(D,X)		The TI-LFA repair path is found by intersecting P(S,X) and Q(D,X)
	with the post-convergence path to D and computing the explicit SR-		with the post-convergence path to D and computing the explicit SR-
	based path EP(P, Q) from a node P in P(S,X) to a node Q in Q(D,X)		based path EP(P, Q) from a node P in P(S,X) to a node Q in Q(D,X)
	when these nodes are not adjacent along the post-convergence path.		when these nodes are not adjacent along the post-convergence path.
	The TI-LFA repair list is expressed generally as (Node-SID(P), EP(P,		The TI-LFA repair list is expressed generally as (Node-SID(P), EP(P,
	Q)).		Q)).
	S ------- N1 ----------- D		S --------- N1 --------- D
	*\ | \ |		*\ | \ |
	* \ | \ |		* \ | \ |
	* \ | \ |		* \ | \ |
	* N2-----R1****R2 *** R3		* N2----- R1***R2 *** R3
	* *		* *
	N3 *********		N3 **********
	***** : link with high metric (1k)		***** : link with high metric (1k)
	----- : link with metric 1		----- : link with metric 1
	Figure 1: Sample Topology with TI-LFA		Figure 1: Sample Topology with TI-LFA
	As an example, in Figure 1, the focus is on the TI-LFA backup from S		As an example, in Figure 1, the focus is on the TI-LFA backup from S
	to D, considering the failure of node N1.		to D, considering the failure of node N1.
	* First, P(S, N1) is computed and results in [N3, N2, R1].		* First, P(S, N1) is computed and results in [N3, N2, R1].
	skipping to change at line 500 ¶		skipping to change at line 500 ¶
	When a node P is in P(S,X) and a node Q is in Q(D,x), and both are on		When a node P is in P(S,X) and a node Q is in Q(D,x), and both are on
	the post-convergence path and are adjacent to each other, the repair		the post-convergence path and are adjacent to each other, the repair
	list is made of two segments: a node segment to P (to be processed		list is made of two segments: a node segment to P (to be processed
	first), followed by an adjacency segment from P to Q.		first), followed by an adjacency segment from P to Q.
	This is comparable to a post-convergence DLFA (LFA with directed		This is comparable to a post-convergence DLFA (LFA with directed
	forwarding) repair tunnel.		forwarding) repair tunnel.
	5.4. Connecting Distant P and Q Nodes Along Post-Convergence Paths		5.4. Connecting Distant P and Q Nodes Along Post-Convergence Paths
	In some cases, there is no adjacent P and Q node along the post-		In some cases, there is no adjacent P and Q node along the
	convergence path. As mentioned in Section 3, a list of adjacency		post-convergence path. As mentioned in Section 3, a list of
	SIDs can be used to encode the path between P and Q. However, the		adjacency SIDs can be used to encode the path between P and Q.
	PLR can perform additional computations to compute a list of segments		However, the PLR can perform additional computations to compute a
	that represent a loop-free path from P to Q. How these computations		shorter list of segments that represent a loop-free path from P to Q.
	are done is out of scope of this document and is left to		How these computations are done is out of scope of this document and
	implementation.		is left to implementation.
	6. Building TI-LFA Repair Lists for SR Segments		6. Building TI-LFA Repair Lists for SR Segments
	The following sections describe how to build the repair lists using		The following sections describe how to build the repair lists using
	the terminology defined in [RFC8402]. The procedures described in		the terminology defined in [RFC8402]. The procedures described in
	this section are equally applicable to both the Segment Routing over		this section are equally applicable to both the Segment Routing over
	MPLS (SR-MPLS) and the Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) dataplane,		MPLS (SR-MPLS) and the Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) dataplane,
	while the dataplane-specific considerations are described in		while the dataplane-specific considerations are described in
	Section 7.		Section 7.
	skipping to change at line 611 ¶		skipping to change at line 611 ¶
	7.1. MPLS Dataplane Considerations		7.1. MPLS Dataplane Considerations
	The MPLS dataplane for Segment Routing (SR) is described in		The MPLS dataplane for Segment Routing (SR) is described in
	[RFC8660].		[RFC8660].
	The following dataplane behaviors apply when creating a repair list		The following dataplane behaviors apply when creating a repair list
	using an MPLS dataplane:		using an MPLS dataplane:
	1. If the active segment is a node segment that has been signaled		1. If the active segment is a node segment that has been signaled
	with penultimate hop popping, and the repair list ends with an		with penultimate hop popping, and the repair list ends with an
	adjacency segment terminating on a node that advertised the		adjacency segment terminating on the penultimate node of the
	"NEXT" operation [RFC8402] of the active segment, then the active		active segment, then the active segment MUST be popped before
	segment MUST be popped before pushing the repair list.		pushing the repair list.
	2. If the active segment is a node segment, but the other conditions		2. If the active segment is a node segment, but the other conditions
	in 1. are not met, the active segment MUST be popped and then		in 1. are not met, the active segment MUST be popped and then
	pushed again with a label value computed according to the Segment		pushed again with a label value computed according to the Segment
	Routing Global Block (SRGB) of Q, where Q is the endpoint of the		Routing Global Block (SRGB) of Q, where Q is the endpoint of the
	repair list. Finally, the repair list MUST be pushed.		repair list. Finally, the repair list MUST be pushed.
	7.2. SRv6 Dataplane Considerations		7.2. SRv6 Dataplane Considerations
	SRv6 dataplane and programming instructions are described		SRv6 dataplane and programming instructions are described
	skipping to change at line 880 ¶		skipping to change at line 880 ¶
	and PE4, when the link L fails, depending on the convergence speed of		and PE4, when the link L fails, depending on the convergence speed of
	the nodes, X may reroute its forwarding entries to the remote PEs		the nodes, X may reroute its forwarding entries to the remote PEs
	onto X-H or X-D; however, in a similar timeframe, PE1 will also		onto X-H or X-D; however, in a similar timeframe, PE1 will also
	reroute a subset of its traffic (the subset destined to PE2) out of		reroute a subset of its traffic (the subset destined to PE2) out of
	its nominal path, reducing the quantity of traffic received by X.		its nominal path, reducing the quantity of traffic received by X.
	The capacity planning rule presented previously has the drawback of		The capacity planning rule presented previously has the drawback of
	oversizing the network; however, it allows for preventing any		oversizing the network; however, it allows for preventing any
	transient congestion (for example, when X reroutes traffic before PE1		transient congestion (for example, when X reroutes traffic before PE1
	does).		does).
	H --- I --- J		H --- I --- J *
	| | \		| | *
	PE4 | | PE3		PE4 | | PE3
	\ | (L) | /		\ | (L) | *
	A --- X --- B --- G		* A --- X --- B --- G *
	/ | | \		* | | *
	PE1 | | PE2		PE1 | | PE2
	\ | | /		* | | *
	C --- D --- E --- F		* C --- D --- E --- F *
	Figure 3		Figure 3
	Based on this assumption, in order to facilitate the operation of FRR		Based on this assumption, in order to facilitate the operation of FRR
	and limit the implementation of local FRR policies, traffic can be		and limit the implementation of local FRR policies, traffic can be
	steered by the PLR onto its expected post-convergence path during the		steered by the PLR onto its expected post-convergence path during the
	FRR phase. In our example, when link L fails, X switches the traffic		FRR phase. In our example, when link L fails, X switches the traffic
	destined to PE3 and PE2 on the post-convergence paths. This is		destined to PE3 and PE2 on the post-convergence paths. This is
	perfectly in line with the capacity planning rule that was presented		perfectly in line with the capacity planning rule that was presented
	before and also in line with the fact that X may converge before PE1		before and also in line with the fact that X may converge before PE1
	skipping to change at line 929 ¶		skipping to change at line 929 ¶
	that happened is different from the failure FRR was protecting		that happened is different from the failure FRR was protecting
	against. As an example, if the operator has implemented a protection		against. As an example, if the operator has implemented a protection
	against a node failure, the expected post-convergence path used		against a node failure, the expected post-convergence path used
	during FRR will be the one considering that the node has failed.		during FRR will be the one considering that the node has failed.
	However, even if a single link is failing or a set of links is		However, even if a single link is failing or a set of links is
	failing (instead of the full node), the node-protecting post-		failing (instead of the full node), the node-protecting post-
	convergence path will be used. The consequence is that the path used		convergence path will be used. The consequence is that the path used
	during FRR is not optimal with respect to the failure that has		during FRR is not optimal with respect to the failure that has
	actually occurred.		actually occurred.
	Another consideration to take into account is as follows: While using		Another consideration to take into account is as follows: while using
	the expected post-convergence path for SR traffic using node segments		the expected post-convergence path for SR traffic using node segments
	only (for instance, PE to PE traffic using the shortest path) has		only (for instance, PE to PE traffic using the shortest path) has
	some advantages, these advantages reduce when SR policies [RFC9256]		some advantages, these advantages reduce when SR policies [RFC9256]
	are involved. A segment list used in an SR policy is computed to		are involved. A segment list used in an SR policy is computed to
	obey a set of path constraints defined locally at the head-end or		obey a set of path constraints defined locally at the head-end or
	centrally in a controller. TI-LFA cannot be aware of such path		centrally in a controller. TI-LFA cannot be aware of such path
	constraints, and there is no reason to expect the TI-LFA backup path		constraints, and there is no reason to expect the TI-LFA backup path
	protecting one segment in that segment list to obey those		protecting one segment in that segment list to obey those
	constraints. When SR policies are used and the operator wants to		constraints. When SR policies are used and the operator wants to
	have a backup path that still follows the policy requirements, this		have a backup path that still follows the policy requirements, this
	skipping to change at line 961 ¶		skipping to change at line 961 ¶
	This section presents an analysis performed on real service provider		This section presents an analysis performed on real service provider
	and large enterprise network topologies. The objective of the		and large enterprise network topologies. The objective of the
	analysis is to assess the number of SIDs required in an explicit path		analysis is to assess the number of SIDs required in an explicit path
	when the mechanisms described in this document are used to protect		when the mechanisms described in this document are used to protect
	against the failure scenarios within the scope of this document. The		against the failure scenarios within the scope of this document. The
	number of segments described in this section are applicable to		number of segments described in this section are applicable to
	instantiating SR over the MPLS forwarding plane.		instantiating SR over the MPLS forwarding plane.
	The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG		The measurement below indicates that, for link and local SRLG
	protection, a 1-SID repair path delivers more than 99% coverage. For		protection, a repair path of 1 SID or less delivers more than 99%
	node protection, a 2-SID repair path yields 99% coverage.		coverage. For node protection, a repair path of 2 SIDs or less
			yields 99% coverage.
	Table 1 below lists the characteristics of the networks used in our		Table 1 below lists the characteristics of the networks used in our
	measurements. The number of links refers to the number of		measurements. The number of links refers to the number of
	"bidirectional" links (not directed edges of the graph). The		"bidirectional" links (not directed edges of the graph). The
	measurements are carried out as follows:		measurements are carried out as follows:
	* For each network, the algorithms described in this document are		* For each network, the algorithms described in this document are
	applied to protect all prefixes against link, node, and local SRLG		applied to protect all prefixes against link, node, and local SRLG
	failure.		failure.
	* For each prefix, the number of SIDs used by the repair path is		* For each prefix, the number of SIDs used by the repair path is
	recorded.		recorded.
	* The percentage of number of SIDs are listed in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5,		* The percentage of number of SIDs are listed in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5,
	6, and 7.		6, and 7.
	The measurements listed in the tables indicate that for link and
	local SRLG protection, a 1-SID repair path is sufficient to protect
	more than 99% of the prefix in almost all cases. For node
	protection, 2-SID repair paths yield 99% coverage.
	+=========+=======+=======+====================+============+		+=========+=======+=======+====================+============+
	| Network | Nodes | Links | Node-to-Link Ratio | SRLG Info? |		| Network | Nodes | Links | Node-to-Link Ratio | SRLG Info? |
	+=========+=======+=======+====================+============+		+=========+=======+=======+====================+============+
	| T1 | 408 | 665 | 1.63 | Yes |		| T1 | 408 | 665 | 1.63 | Yes |
	+---------+-------+-------+--------------------+------------+		+---------+-------+-------+--------------------+------------+
	| T2 | 587 | 1083 | 1.84 | No |		| T2 | 587 | 1083 | 1.84 | No |
	+---------+-------+-------+--------------------+------------+		+---------+-------+-------+--------------------+------------+
	| T3 | 93 | 401 | 4.31 | Yes |		| T3 | 93 | 401 | 4.31 | Yes |
	+---------+-------+-------+--------------------+------------+		+---------+-------+-------+--------------------+------------+
	| T4 | 247 | 393 | 1.59 | Yes |		| T4 | 247 | 393 | 1.59 | Yes |
	skipping to change at line 1055 ¶		skipping to change at line 1051 ¶
	| T7 | 98.9% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T7 | 98.9% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T8 | 94.1% | 5.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T8 | 94.1% | 5.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T9 | 98.9% | 1.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T9 | 98.9% | 1.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	Table 2: Link Protection (Repair Size		Table 2: Link Protection (Repair Size
	Distribution)		Distribution)
	+=========+========+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+
	| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs |		| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs |
	+=========+========+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+
	| T1 | 74.2% | 99.5% | 99.9% | 100.0% |		| T1 | 74.2% | 99.5% | 99.9% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T2 | 81.1% | 99.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T2 | 81.1% | 99.8% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T3 | 95.9% | 99.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T3 | 95.9% | 99.9% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T4 | 62.5% | 98.2% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T4 | 62.5% | 98.2% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T5 | 85.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T5 | 85.7% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T6 | 81.2% | 99.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T6 | 81.2% | 99.9% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T7 | 98.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T7 | 98.8% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T8 | 94.1% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T8 | 94.1% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T9 | 98.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T9 | 98.9% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	Table 3: Link Protection (Repair Size		Table 3: Link Protection (Repair Size
	Cumulative Distribution)		Cumulative Distribution)
	Tables 4 and 5 summarize the measurements on the number of SIDs		Tables 4 and 5 summarize the measurements on the number of SIDs
	needed for local SRLG protection.		needed for local SRLG protection.
	+=========+========+=======+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+
	| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs |		| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs |
	+=========+========+=======+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+
	| T1 | 74.2% | 25.3% | 0.5% | 0.0% |		| T1 | 74.2% | 25.3% | 0.5% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T2 | No SRLG information |		| T2 | No SRLG information |
	skipping to change at line 1108 ¶		skipping to change at line 1104 ¶
	| T7 | No SRLG information |		| T7 | No SRLG information |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T8 | 85.2% | 14.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T8 | 85.2% | 14.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T9 | 98.9% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T9 | 98.9% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	Table 4: Local SRLG Protection (Repair		Table 4: Local SRLG Protection (Repair
	Size Distribution)		Size Distribution)
	+=========+========+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+
	| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs |		| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs |
	+=========+========+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+
	| T1 | 74.2% | 99.5% | 99.9% | 100.0% |		| T1 | 74.2% | 99.5% | 99.9% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T2 | No SRLG information |		| T2 | No SRLG information |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T3 | 93.6% | 99.9% | 100.0% | 0.0% |		| T3 | 93.6% | 99.9% | 100% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T4 | 62.5% | 98.2% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T4 | 62.5% | 98.2% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T5 | 83.1% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T5 | 83.1% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T6 | No SRLG information |		| T6 | No SRLG information |
	+---------+-----------------------------------+		+---------+----------------------------------+
	| T7 | No SRLG information |		| T7 | No SRLG information |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T8 | 85.2% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T8 | 85.2% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	| T9 | 98.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T9 | 98.9% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+
	Table 5: Local SRLG Protection (Repair Size		Table 5: Local SRLG Protection (Repair
	Cumulative Distribution)		Size Cumulative Distribution)
	The remaining two tables summarize the measurements on the number of		The remaining two tables summarize the measurements on the number of
	SIDs needed for node protection.		SIDs needed for node protection.
	+=========+========+=======+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+========+
	| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs | 4 SIDs |		| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs | 4 SIDs |
	+=========+========+=======+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+========+
	| T1 | 49.8% | 47.9% | 2.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |		| T1 | 49.8% | 47.9% | 2.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T2 | 36.5% | 59.6% | 3.6% | 0.2% | 0.0% |		| T2 | 36.5% | 59.6% | 3.6% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
	skipping to change at line 1160 ¶		skipping to change at line 1156 ¶
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T7 | 66.1% | 32.8% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T7 | 66.1% | 32.8% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T8 | 59.7% | 40.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T8 | 59.7% | 40.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T9 | 98.9% | 1.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |		| T9 | 98.9% | 1.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
	+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	Table 6: Node Protection (Repair Size Distribution)		Table 6: Node Protection (Repair Size Distribution)
	+=========+========+========+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+========+
	| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs | 4 SIDs |		| Network | 0 SIDs | 1 SID | 2 SIDs | 3 SIDs | 4 SIDs |
	+=========+========+========+========+========+========+		+=========+========+=======+========+========+========+
	| T1 | 49.7% | 97.6% | 99.8% | 99.9% | 100.0% |		| T1 | 49.7% | 97.6% | 99.8% | 99.9% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T2 | 36.5% | 96.1% | 99.7% | 99.9% | 100.0% |		| T2 | 36.5% | 96.1% | 99.7% | 99.9% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T3 | 73.3% | 98.9% | 99.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T3 | 73.3% | 98.9% | 99.9% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T4 | 36.1% | 93.4% | 99.8% | 99.9% | 100.0% |		| T4 | 36.1% | 93.4% | 99.8% | 99.9% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T5 | 73.2% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T5 | 73.2% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T6 | 78.4% | 99.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T6 | 78.4% | 99.7% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T7 | 66.1% | 98.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T7 | 66.1% | 98.9% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T8 | 59.7% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T8 | 59.7% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	| T9 | 98.9% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |		| T9 | 98.9% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
	+---------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+		+---------+--------+-------+--------+--------+--------+
	Table 7: Node Protection (Repair Size Cumulative		Table 7: Node Protection (Repair Size Cumulative
	Distribution)		Distribution)
	Acknowledgments		Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Stewart Bryant,		The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Stewart Bryant,
	Alexander Vainsthein, Chris Bowers, Shraddha Hedge, Wes Hardaker,		Alexander Vainsthein, Chris Bowers, Shraddha Hedge, Wes Hardaker,
	Gunter Van de Velde, and John Scudder for their valuable comments.		Gunter Van de Velde, and John Scudder for their valuable comments.
	Contributors		Contributors
	In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following		In addition to the authors listed on the front page, the following
End of changes. 13 change blocks.
	103 lines changed or deleted		99 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.