Extensions to CR-LDP and RSVP-TE for setup of pre-established recovery tunnels
draft-hellstrand-mpls-recovery-merge-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Fiffi A. Hellstrand , Loa Andersson | ||
| Last updated | 2000-11-29 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
To protect an Explicit Routed Label Switched Path (ER-LSP) an explicitly routed LSP can be used as a recovery path. We consider a repair scheme where a Recovery LSP (R-LSP) spans one or several hops. After a switchover of traffic to the R-LSP we want to allow the traffic to merge onto the original LSP at the merging node downstream of the fault without causing any extra resource reservation. This merge operation differs in a number of details from that employed for a normal MP2P LSP. Our objective is to define extensions to both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE that address these differences. CR-LDP and RSVP-TE are defined in [CR-LDP] and [RSVP-TE], respectively, for path setup within a MPLS domain. In this draft we specify mechanisms required to support this merge.
Authors
Fiffi A. Hellstrand
Loa Andersson
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)