PW Bonding
draft-stein-pwe3-pwbonding-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Yaakov (J) Stein , Itai Mendelsohn , Ron Insler | ||
| Last updated | 2008-11-03 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
There are times when pseudowires must be transported over physical links with limited bandwidth. We shall use the term "bonding" (also variously known as inverse multiplexing, link aggregation, trunking, teaming, etc.) to mean an efficient mechanism for separating the PW traffic over several links. Unlike load balancing and equal cost multipath, bonding makes no assumption that the PW traffic can be decomposed into distinguishable flows, and thus bonding requires delay compensation and packet reordering. Furthermore, PW bonding can optionally track bandwidth constraints in order to minimize packet loss.
Authors
Yaakov (J) Stein
Itai Mendelsohn
Ron Insler
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)