fig7 a illustrates a dual frr configuration for the basic case of fig6 , where b 2 serves as a dual frr backup lsp whose egress lsr is nhop . link failure frr scenario ( covers case a mentioned in the description to fig6 ): if the protected link lsr 1 to lsr 2 goes down but lsr 2 stays up , plr lsr 1 would switch traffic to both b 1 and b 2 , not distinguishing a link from a node failure . traffic arriving on b 1 to nnhop lsr 3 returns to the working lsp towards lsr 4 . when traffic arrives on b 2 to nhop lsr 2 ( b 2 &# 39 ; s egress lsr ), nhop avoids forwarding traffic to nnhop lsr 3 , as the latter is protected against the nhop &# 39 ; s failure , and sends it only to the access port of lsr 2 . in other words , nhop avoids forwarding to sub - lsps going in the direction of lsr 3 , as they have node protection at plr lsr 1 . thus , lsr 3 receives traffic only from b 1 , and duplication is avoided . node failure frr scenario : if lsr 2 goes down , description is the same as above , except that nhop is anyway down and cannot cause traffic duplication . fig7 b illustrates a dual frr configuration using a p2mp dual frr backup lsp b 3 , where nhop and nnhop serve as its leaf and transit & amp ; leaf lsrs , respectively . link failure frr scenario ( covers case a ): if the protected link lsr 1 to lsr 2 goes down but lsr 2 stays up , plr lsr 1 would switch traffic to b 3 , not distinguishing a link from a node failure . traffic arriving on b 3 to nnhop lsr 3 returns to the working lsp towards lsr 4 . since nnhop lsr 3 is a transit & amp ; leaf lsr for b 3 , traffic also continues on b 3 towards lsr 2 . nhop lsr 2 ( b 3 &# 39 ; s leaf ) avoids forwarding traffic to nnhop lsr 3 , as the latter is protected against the nhop &# 39 ; s failure , so nhop sends the traffic only to the access port . in other words , nhop avoids forwarding traffic to sub - lsps going in the direction of lsr 3 as they have node protection assigned at plr lsr 1 ( say , plr informs nhop about that via signaling , or the blocking rule is manually configured on nhop ). thus , lsr 3 receives traffic only from b 3 , and duplication is avoided . node failure frr scenario : if lsr 2 goes down , description is the same as above , except that nhop is anyway down and cannot cause traffic duplication . fig7 c illustrates an example of a dual frr configuration using a p2mp dual frr backup lsp b 4 , where both nhop and nnhop serve as its leaves . link failure frr scenario ( covers case a ): if the protected link lsr 1 to lsr 2 goes down but lsr 2 stays up , plr lsr 1 would switch traffic to b 4 , which would deliver the traffic to both nnhop lsr 3 and nhop lsr 2 . traffic arriving to nnhop lsr 3 returns to the working lsp towards lsr 4 . nhop lsr 2 ( b 4 &# 39 ; s leaf ) avoids forwarding traffic to nnhop lsr 3 , as the latter is protected against failure of the former , and sends the traffic only to the access port of lsr 2 . thus , lsr 3 receives traffic only from b 4 , and duplication is avoided . node failure frr scenario : if lsr 2 goes down , description is the same as above , except that nhop is anyway down and cannot cause traffic duplication . case d . the working lsp can lie referred to as p2p lsp if the access port at lsr 2 were removed ( see a reservation in fig8 a ). thus , traffic arriving to nhop lsr 2 on b 2 , b 3 or b 4 ( see 7 a , 7 b , 7 c respectively ) is just discarded , avoiding the traffic duplication at lsr 3 . fig8 illustrates an advanced case of the dual frr . a portion of a p2mp lsp is flowing from lsr 1 to transit & amp ; leaf lsr 2 , where traffic splits towards lsr 3 , lsr 4 , transit & amp ; leaf lsr 5 , and lsr 6 . traffic also continues from lsr 3 / lsr 5 / lsr 6 to lsr 7 / lsr 8 / lsr 9 , respectively . frr protection is as follows : b 5 provides link protection towards lsr 2 and lsr 4 ( how link protection is provided towards lsr 4 is described below ) and node protection towards lsr 3 , lsr 5 , and lsr 6 . link failure frr scenario ( covers cases a , b , c ): if the protected link lsr 1 to lsr 2 goes down but lsr 2 stays up , plr lsr 1 would switch traffic to b 5 , not distinguishing a link from a node failure . traffic arriving on b 5 to nnhop lsr 3 ( lsr 6 ) returns to the working lsp towards lsr 7 ( lsr 9 ), respectively . since lsr 6 is a transit & amp ; leaf lsr for b 5 , traffic also continues on b 5 towards lsr 5 . traffic arriving on b 5 to nnhop lsr 5 is sent to the access port and also returns to the working lsp towards lsr 8 . since nnhop lsr 5 is a transit & amp ; leaf lsr for b 5 , traffic also continues on b 5 towards lsr 2 . nhop lsr 2 ( b 5 &# 39 ; s leaf ) avoids forwarding traffic to nnhops lsr 3 / lsr 5 / lsr 6 , as they are protected against its failure , and sends it only to the access port and lsr 4 . in other words , nhop avoids forwarding to sub - lsps going in the direction of lsr 3 / lsr 5 / lsr 6 as they have node protection ( against failure of lsr 2 ), assigned at plr lsr 1 . thus , nnhops lsr 3 / lsr 5 / lsr 6 receive traffic only from b 5 , and the traffic duplication is avoided . note that lsr 4 gets a copy of the traffic from lsr 2 ( i . e ., nhop does not block forwarding to lsr 4 of the traffic received along b 5 , since lsr 4 is not protected against failure of lsr 2 ) and benefits from link protection , which would be impossible without the dual frr mechanism . mixed p2p and p2mp backup : p2p backup lsp b 6 could replace b 5 in providing frr node protection towards nnhop lsr 3 . traffic arriving on b 6 to nnhop lsr 3 returns to the working lsp towards lsr 7 , while nhop lsr 2 avoids forwarding traffic to nnhop lsr 3 , as lsr 3 is protected against lsr 2 &# 39 ; s failure . node failure frr scenario : if lsr 2 ( nhop ) goes down , description is the same as above , except that nhop is anyway down and cannot cause traffic duplication . nnhop lsr 4 will not get a copy of the traffic , and this is normal because lsr 4 is originally not protected against the failure of lsr 2 . in the general case , the proposed method allows configuring a blocking rule for sub - lsps of the working lsp ( i . e ., for branches of the main working lsp , see fig8 where traffic splits towards lsr 3 , lsr 4 , transit & amp ; leaf lsr 5 , and lsr 6 being all nnhop nodes ). for the working sub - lsps , having the assigned node protection by ordinary or dual frr backup lsps , this blocking rule will prevent duplication of the traffic , when plr applies the concurrent link and node frr . in particular , the blocking rule at nhop can be applied only to sub - lsps which have the assigned node protection at plr , while not applying the blocking rule to other sub - lsps which thus can benefit from link protection when the link from plr to nhop fails . the method thereby allows supporting concurrent link and node protection on per lsp basis . as can be seen from the above two exemplary embodiments , the proposed invention meets its objectives . it resolves the frr duplication problem while eliminating the prior art disadvantages : ( 1 ) performance : no need for hello exchange to detect a node failure ; as the plr does not distinguish between link and node failures ( 2 ) detection time : plr triggers link and node frr upon link failure , this can be done very fast based on physical layer indications ( 3 ) availability : no need for an alternate path , as there , are no hellos to exchange . realization . the dual frr method can be implemented by either static or dynamic provisioning . the static provisioning could be achieved using either central and / or local management entity . the dual frr configuration implementation could include : ( a ) dual frr flag per backup lsp hop : enabled at nhop for any dual frr backup lsp protecting the link from plr to nhop . ( b ) dual frr flag per working sub - lsp ( or p2p lsp ) hop : enabled at nhop for any working sub - lsp ( or p2p lsp ) which is protected at plr against nhop &# 39 ; s failure . nhop then applies the blocking rule when both ( a ) and ( b ) are enabled , i . e ., when traffic whose dual frr flag is enabled according to rule ( b ) is received on backup lsp whose dual frr flag is enabled according to rule ( a ). the dynamic provisioning can be achieved via mpls signaling protocol such as rsvp ( french title of the protocol , that translates “ please respond ”). for instance : ( 1 ) dual frr flag per backup lsp : may be indicated by plr via a dedicated rsvp object or flag . the flag will be read ( recognized ) by the nhop and used accordingly . ( 2 ) dual frr flag per working sub - lsp : may be based on the so - called record route object , with which plrs indicate that a sub - lsp has assignment for node protection . thus , if a sub - lsp has node protection at plr , nhop would enable the dual frr flag . the blocking rule would then be applied similarly to the static provisioning . the mentioned flags are “ put on ” or “ enabled ” at the nhop owing to information obtained from the plr , thus allowing the nhop to analyze the flags and make the blocking decision . each node should be provided with local software and / or hardware means for executing instructions including the blocking rule and the abovementioned flags , which are set on or off based on a configuration received via static and / or signaling - based mechanisms . it should be appreciated that other combinations of working and backup paths can be created in a practical network being an mpls or a non - mpls one , and that other practical implementations can be proposed for realizing the proposed concept of avoiding traffic duplication when utilizing the frr mechanism .