Use cases and alternatives for configuring intermediate nodes using RSVP-TE
draft-kern-ccamp-intermediate-node-config-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Andras Kern , Attila Takacs | ||
| Last updated | 2010-03-01 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
Lately, a few use-cases have been identified where, besides path setup, specific configuration of intermediate nodes is required for the establishment of an LSP with its associated functions. Today, RSVP-TE is not supporting the selective configuration of intermediate nodes; hence extensions are required to equip RSVP-TE with such a capability. In this document we summarize the use-cases and their requirements and sketch alternative solutions to configure intermediate nodes. Since one of the main issues with intermediate node configuration is the introduction of potential scaling problems, we included scalability in our analysis. This document does not specify any extensions; its sole purpose is to foster discussion on the subject.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)