Signaling RSVP-TE P2MP LSPs in an Inter-domain Environment
draft-ali-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp-09
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zafar Ali , Rakesh Gandhi , Tarek Saad , Robert H. Venator , Yuji Kamite | ||
| Last updated | 2012-11-09 (Latest revision 2012-10-15) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-mpls-inter-domain-p2mp-rsvp-te-lsp | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
Point-to-MultiPoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) are established using signaling procedures defined in [RFC4875]. However, [RFC4875] does not address several issues that arise when a P2MP-TE LSP is signaled in inter-domain networks. One such issue is the computation of a loosely routed inter-domain P2MP- TE LSP paths that are re-merge free. Another issue is the reoptimization of the inter-domain P2MP-TE LSP tree vs. an individual destination(s), since the loosely routing domain ingress border node is not aware of the reoptimization scope. This document defines the required protocol extensions needed for establishing and reoptimizing P2MP MPLS and GMPLS TE LSPs in inter-domain networks.
Authors
Zafar Ali
Rakesh Gandhi
Tarek Saad
Robert H. Venator
Yuji Kamite
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)