RFC 4829: Label Switched Path (LSP) Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
When the establishment of a higher priority (Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path) TE LSP requires the preemption of a set of lower priority TE LSPs, a node has to make a local decision to select which TE LSPs will be preempted. The preempted LSPs are then rerouted by their respective \%Head-end Label Switch Router (LSR). This document presents a flexible policy that can be used to achieve different objectives: preempt the lowest priority LSPs; preempt the minimum number of LSPs; preempt the set of TE LSPs that provide the closest amount of bandwidth to the required bandwidth for the preempting TE LSPs (to minimize bandwidth wastage); preempt the LSPs that will have the maximum chance to get rerouted. Simulation results are given and a comparison among several different policies, with respect to preemption cascading, number of preempted LSPs, priority, wasted bandwidth and blocking probability is also included. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4829
- Published
- April 2007
- Authors
- J. de Oliveira; JP. Vasseur; L. Chen; C. Scoglio
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- INDEPENDENT
- Area
- —
- Pages
- 19
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4447Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)Obsoleted
April 2006
- RFC 5441A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched PathsCurrent
April 2009
- RFC 4206Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)Updated
October 2005
- RFC 5712MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft PreemptionCurrent
January 2010
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?