Preferential Forwarding Status bit definition
draft-muley-dutta-pwe3-redundancy-bit-02
| Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Praveen Muley , Matthew Bocci , Jonathan Newton , Luca Martini | ||
| Last updated | 2008-02-29 (Latest revision 2007-11-19) | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit | |
| 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This Internet-Draft is no longer active.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
This document describes a mechanism for standby status signaling of redundant PWs between their termination points. A set of redundant PWs is configured between PE nodes in SS-PW applications, or between T-PE nodes in MS-PW applications. In order for the PE/T-PE nodes to indicate the preferred PW path to forward to one another, a new status bit is needed to indicate a preferential forwarding status of active or standby for each PW in the redundancy set. In addition, a second status bit is defined to allow peer PE/T-PE nodes to coordinate a switchover operation of the PW/MS-PW path. 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 [1].
Authors
Praveen Muley
Matthew Bocci
Jonathan Newton
Luca Martini
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)