RFC 4128: Bandwidth Constraints Models for Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering: Performance Evaluation
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
"Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering Requirements", RFC 3564, specifies the requirements and selection criteria for Bandwidth Constraints Models. Two such models, the Maximum Allocation and the Russian Dolls, are described therein. This document complements RFC 3564 by presenting the results of a performance evaluation of these two models under various operational conditions: normal load, overload, preemption fully or partially enabled, pure blocking, or complete sharing. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4128
- Published
- June 2005
- Authors
- W. Lai
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- INDEPENDENT
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 25
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4201Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)Current
October 2005
- RFC 3988Maximum Transmission Unit Signalling Extensions for the Label Distribution ProtocolCurrent
February 2005
- RFC 4726A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic EngineeringCurrent
November 2006
- RFC 4920Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TECurrent
July 2007
- RFC 4972Routing Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh MembershipCurrent
July 2007
- RFC 8413Framework for Scheduled Use of ResourcesCurrent
July 2018
- RFC 4127Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic EngineeringCurrent
June 2005
- RFC 4126Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering & Performance ComparisonsCurrent
June 2005
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?