Informal Survey into Explicit Route Object Implementations in Generalized Multiprotocol Labels Switching Signaling Implementations
draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Last updated | 2006-05-11 | ||
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
During discussions of a document to provide guidance on the use of addressing fields within the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling protocol used in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS), it was determined that there was considerable variation in the implementation of options for the Explicit Route Object (ERO). Since there was a proposal to deprecate some of the options, it was felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned implementations. This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the results. Some conclusions are also presented. This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were collected and anonymized by the CCAMP working group chair.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)