RFC 5711: Node Behavior upon Originating and Receiving Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error Messages
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
The aim of this document is to describe a common practice with regard to the behavior of nodes that send and receive a Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Error messages for a preempted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). (For reference to the notion of TE LSP preemption, see RFC 3209.) This document does not define any new protocol extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC5711
- Published
- January 2010
- Authors
- JP. Vasseur; G. Swallow; I. Minei
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 7
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 3209
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 5710PathErr Message Triggered MPLS and GMPLS LSP ReroutesCurrent
January 2010
- RFC 5467GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)Obsoleted
March 2009
- RFC 6517Mandatory Features in a Layer 3 Multicast BGP/MPLS VPN SolutionCurrent
February 2012
- RFC 4873GMPLS Segment RecoveryUpdated
May 2007
- RFC 4736Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)Current
November 2006
- RFC 4558Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello: A Clarification StatementCurrent
June 2006
- RFC 7487Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using RSVP-TECurrent
March 2015
- RFC 7570Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)Current
July 2015
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?