Pseudowire (PW) Redundancy
draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy-02
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Praveen Muley , Matthew Bocci , Jonathan Newton | ||
| Last updated | 2007-11-19 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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 document describes a few scenarios where PW redundancy is needed. A set of redundant PWs is configured between PE nodes in SS- PW applications, or between T-PE nodes in MS-PW applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW path to forward to one another, a new status bit is needed to indicate the preferential forwarding status of active or standby for each PW in the redundancy set as defined in [7]. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [1].
Authors
Praveen Muley
Matthew Bocci
Jonathan Newton
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)