Skip to main content

Loss and Delay Traffic Engineering Framework for MPLS
draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-framework-05

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Expired & archived
Authors Xihua Fu , Vishwas Manral , Dave McDysan , Andrew G. Malis , Spencer Giacalone , Malcolm Betts , Qilei Wang , John Drake
Last updated 2012-10-13 (Latest revision 2012-04-11)
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Additional resources
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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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

With more and more enterprises using cloud based services, the distances between the user and the applications are growing. A lot of the current applications are designed to work across LAN's and have various inherent assumptions. For multiple applications such as High Performance Computing and Electronic Financial markets, the response times are critical as is packet loss, while other applications require more throughput. [RFC3031] describes the architecture of MPLS based networks. This draft extends the MPLS architecture to allow for latency, loss and jitter as properties. It describes requirements and control plane implication for latency and packet loss as a traffic engineering performance metric in today's network which is consisting of potentially multiple layers of packet transport network and optical transport network in order to make a accurate end-to-end latency and loss prediction before a path is established. Note MPLS architecture for Multicast will be taken up in a future version of the draft.

Authors

Xihua Fu
Vishwas Manral
Dave McDysan
Andrew G. Malis
Spencer Giacalone
Malcolm Betts
Qilei Wang
John Drake

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)