RFC 4216: MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document discusses requirements for the support of inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE). Its main objective is to present a set of requirements and scenarios which would result in general guidelines for the definition, selection, and specification development for any technical solution(s) meeting these requirements and supporting the scenarios. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4216
- Published
- November 2005
- Authors
- R. Zhang; J.-P. Vasseur
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sub
- Pages
- 29
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4105Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS Traffic EngineeringCurrent
June 2005
- RFC 4726A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic EngineeringCurrent
November 2006
- RFC 3480Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol)Current
February 2003
- RFC 3477Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)Updated
February 2003
- RFC 4972Routing Extensions for Discovery of Multiprotocol (MPLS) Label Switch Router (LSR) Traffic Engineering (TE) Mesh MembershipCurrent
July 2007
- RFC 5151Inter-Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) ExtensionsCurrent
February 2008
- RFC 5316ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic EngineeringObsoleted
December 2008
- RFC 5392OSPF Extensions in Support of Inter-Autonomous System (AS) MPLS and GMPLS Traffic EngineeringCurrent
January 2009
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?