Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-existence
draft-sitaraman-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec-02
| 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) | ||
| Formats | |||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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:
Abstract
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.
Authors
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.)