Skip to main content

Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-existence

Document Type Replaced Internet-Draft (teas WG)
Expired & archived
Authors Harish Sitaraman , Vishnu Pavan Beeram , Ina Minei , Siva Sivabalan
Last updated 2017-04-28 (Latest revision 2017-02-17)
Replaced by RFC 8426
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state Candidate for WG Adoption
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Replaced by draft-ietf-teas-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:


Operators are looking to introduce services over Segment Routing (SR) LSPs in networks running Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP-TE) LSPs. In some instances, operators are also migrating existing services from RSVP-TE to SR LSPs. For example, there might be certain services that are well suited for SR and need to co-exist with RSVP-TE in the same network. In other cases, services running on RSVP-TE might be migrated to run over SR. Such introduction or migration of traffic to SR might require co-existence with RSVP-TE in the same network for an extended period of time depending on the operator's intent. The following document provides solution options for keeping the traffic engineering database (TED) consistent across the network, accounting for the different bandwidth utilization between SR and RSVP-TE.


Harish Sitaraman
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Ina Minei
Siva Sivabalan

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