RFC 4428: Analysis of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)-based Recovery Mechanisms (including Protection and Restoration)
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document provides an analysis grid to evaluate, compare, and contrast the Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite capabilities with the recovery mechanisms currently proposed at the IETF CCAMP Working Group. A detailed analysis of each of the recovery phases is provided using the terminology defined in RFC 4427. This document focuses on transport plane survivability and recovery issues and not on control plane resilience and related aspects. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4428
- Published
- March 2006
- Authors
- D. Papadimitriou; E. Mannie
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 47
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4427Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)Current
March 2006
- RFC 4426Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery Functional SpecificationCurrent
March 2006
- RFC 4420Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)Obsoleted
February 2006
- RFC 4444Management Information Base for Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)Current
April 2006
- RFC 4446IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge Emulation (PWE3)Current
April 2006
- RFC 4447Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)Obsoleted
April 2006
- RFC 4448Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS NetworksUpdated
April 2006
- RFC 4454Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3)Updated
May 2006
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?