RFC 2961: RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes a number of mechanisms that can be used to reduce processing overhead requirements of refresh messages, eliminate the state synchronization latency incurred when an RSVP (Resource ReserVation Protocol) message is lost and, when desired, refreshing state without the transmission of whole refresh messages. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC2961
- Published
- April 2001
- Authors
- L. Berger; D. Gan; G. Swallow; P. Pan; F. Tommasi; S. Molendini
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 34
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 5063
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2996Format of the RSVP DCLASS ObjectCurrent
November 2000
- RFC 2997Specification of the Null Service TypeCurrent
November 2000
- RFC 3097RSVP Cryptographic Authentication -- Updated Message Type ValueCurrent
April 2001
- RFC 2814SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networksCurrent
May 2000
- RFC 2747RSVP Cryptographic AuthenticationUpdated
January 2000
- RFC 3175Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 ReservationsUpdated
September 2001
- RFC 2746RSVP Operation Over IP TunnelsCurrent
January 2000
- RFC 2745RSVP Diagnostic MessagesCurrent
January 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?