Problems observed with RSVP recovery signaling
draft-rhodes-rsvp-recovery-signaling-01
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew Rhodes , Nic Neate , David McWalter | ||
| Last updated | 2009-03-04 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
plain text
htmlized
pdfized
bibtex
|
||
| 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) |
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rhodes-rsvp-recovery-signaling-01.txt
Abstract
Implementation experience with RSVP-TE recovery signaling has uncovered some problems. Associations between LSPs in different sessions are forbidden. Protecting LSPs cannot themselves be protected. Overlapping repairs cause loss of traffic. This draft provides details of these problems for the community to consider.
Authors
Andrew Rhodes
Nic Neate
David McWalter
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)