RSVP-TE extensions to GMPLS Calls
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-call-extensions-01
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Fatai Zhang , Dan Li , Jianhua Gao | ||
Last updated | 2009-07-07 | ||
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions are used to support Calls. Although it is stated that these mechanisms are applicable to any environment (including multi-area), the "Call Path" is determined hop-by-hop by each "Call Manager" in sequence along the path of the Call. However, it is desirable to allow the Call-initiator to identify the Call Path explicitly in some cases (especially in the multi-domain case). This document describes RSVP-TE signaling extensions to allow the Call-initiator to identify the Call Path explicitly when transit nodes (besides the Call-initiator and Call-terminator) are involved in these Calls. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].
Authors
Fatai Zhang
Dan Li
Jianhua Gao
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)