RFC 4863: Wildcard Pseudowire Type
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Pseudowire signaling requires that the Pseudowire Type (PW Type) be identical in both directions. For certain applications the configuration of the PW Type is most easily accomplished by configuring this information at just one PW endpoint. In any form of LDP-based signaling, each PW endpoint must initiate the creation of a unidirectional LSP. In order to allow the initiation of these two LSPs to remain independent, a means is needed for allowing the PW endpoint (lacking a priori knowledge of the PW Type) to initiate the creation of an LSP. This document defines a Wildcard PW Type to satisfy this need. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4863
- Published
- May 2007
- Authors
- L. Martini; G. Swallow
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 6
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4717Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) over MPLS NetworksCurrent
December 2006
- RFC 5085Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for PseudowiresUpdated
December 2007
- RFC 4619Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Frame Relay over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) NetworksCurrent
September 2006
- RFC 4618Encapsulation Methods for Transport of PPP/High-Level Data Link Control (HDLC) over MPLS NetworksCurrent
September 2006
- RFC 4448Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS NetworksUpdated
April 2006
- RFC 5641Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) Extended Circuit Status ValuesCurrent
August 2009
- RFC 7026Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated ChannelCurrent
September 2013
- RFC 7267Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment PseudowiresCurrent
June 2014
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?