<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<reference anchor="I-D.hegde-rtgwg-microloop-avoidance-using-spring" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hegde-rtgwg-microloop-avoidance-using-spring-03">
   <front>
      <title>Micro-loop avoidance using SPRING</title>
      <author initials="S." surname="Hegde" fullname="Shraddha Hegde">
         <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="P." surname="Sarkar" fullname="Pushpasis Sarkar">
         <organization>Individual</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="July" day="3" year="2017" />
      <abstract>
	 <t>   When there is a change in network topology either due to a link going
   down or due to a new link addition, all the nodes in the network need
   to get the complete view of the network and re-compute the routes.
   There will generally be a small time window when the forwarding state
   of each of the nodes is not synchronized.  This can result in
   transient loops in the network, leading to dropped traffic due to
   over-subscription of links.  Micro-looping is generally more harmful
   than simply dropping traffic on failed links, because it can cause
   control traffic to be dropped on an otherwise healthy link involved
   in micro-loop.  This can lead to cascading adjacency failures or
   network meltdown.


	 </t>
      </abstract>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-hegde-rtgwg-microloop-avoidance-using-spring-03" />
   
</reference>
