Exclude Routes - Extension to RSVP-TE

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors C.J. Lee  , Adrian Farrel  , Stefaan De Cnodder 
Last updated 2003-03-06
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Expired & archived
plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at


The current RSVP-TE specification, 'RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels' (RFC 3209) and GMPLS extensions to RSVP-TE, 'Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions' (RFC 3473) allow abstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path setup, but not to be explicitly excluded. In some systems where precise explicit paths are not computed at the head end it may be useful to specify and signal abstract nodes and resources that are to be explicitly excluded from routes. These exclusions may apply to the whole of a path, or to parts of a path between two abstract nodes specified in an explicit route. Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) allow the definition of resources or groups of resources that share the same risk of failure. The knowledge of SRLGs may be used to compute diverse paths that can be used for protection. In systems where it is useful to signal exclusions, it may be useful to signal SRLGs to indicate groups of resources that should be excluded on the whole of a path or between two abstract nodes specified in an explicit path. This document specifies ways to communicate route exclusions during path setup using RSVP-TE.


C.J. Lee (cj_lee@novell.com)
Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk)
Stefaan De Cnodder (stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)