RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes protocol specific procedures for GMPLS (Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching) RSVP-TE (Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering) signaling extensions to support label switched path (LSP) segment protection and restoration. These extensions are intended to complement and be consistent with the RSVP-TE Extensions for End-to-End GMPLS Recovery (RFC 4872). Implications and interactions with fast reroute are also addressed. This document also updates the handling of NOTIFY_REQUEST objects. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC4873
- Published
- May 2007
- Authors
- L. Berger; I. Bryskin; D. Papadimitriou; A. Farrel
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 25
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 9270
Topics
Referenced by
One later RFC formally updates or obsoletes part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4558Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello: A Clarification StatementCurrent
June 2006
- RFC 4090Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP TunnelsUpdated
May 2005
- RFC 5710PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP ReroutesCurrent
January 2010
- 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 4875Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)Updated
May 2007
- RFC 4736Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)Current
November 2006
- RFC 4655A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based ArchitectureCurrent
August 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?