Anonymized Responses to a Poll on MPLS Forwarder Behavior
draft-farrel-mpls-forwarder-poll-response-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2023-05-10 (Latest revision 2022-11-06) | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
As part of he work on MPLS Network Actions (MNA) several questions arose concerning how existing MPLS implementations handle Special Purpose Labels (SPLs). The details of MNA protocol extensions may depend on how existing implementations may react when they see those extensions. In order to discover what deployed implementations currently do, the MPLS working group chairs polled participants to answer specific questions. This document is intended to report anonymized answers to that poll. It is not intended that this document should progress to publication as an RFC.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)