PCEP Link-State extensions for Segment Routing
draft-li-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Zhenbin Li , Xia Chen , Nan Wu | ||
| Last updated | 2017-05-03 (Latest revision 2016-10-30) | ||
| Replaces | draft-wu-pce-pcep-ls-sr-extension | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
Segment Routing leverages source routing. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service-based. SR allows to enforce a flow through any topological path and service chain while maintaining per-flow state only at the ingress node of the SR domain. IGP protocols have been extended to advertise the segments. Because of IGP's propagation scope limitation, it is not suited for IGP to signal paths that span across AS borders. This document introduces extensions of PCEP-LS to solve the problem without the similar limitation.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)