Comparison of Multi-Area TE Methods
draft-ash-multi-area-te-compare-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Gerald Ash | ||
| Last updated | 2002-02-26 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
This draft makes comparisons of various multi-area TE methods, which are evaluated against specific criteria. Four basic path selection approaches are compared: a) distributed methods, b) path-computation-server (PCS) methods (centralized & distributed), c) interarea-flooding methods, and d) multiple-path-compare methods. These approaches include needs to support PCS functionality, query functionality, crankback functionality, summary-te-LSA functionality, and TE feedback functionality. The target is to converge on a reduced subset of required multi-area TE methods and protocol extensions.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)