RFC 6374: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Many service provider service level agreements (SLAs) depend on the ability to measure and monitor performance metrics for packet loss and one-way and two-way delay, as well as related metrics such as delay variation and channel throughput. This measurement capability also provides operators with greater visibility into the performance characteristics of their networks, thereby facilitating planning, troubleshooting, and network performance evaluation. This document specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and accurate measurement of these performance metrics in MPLS networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6374
- Published
- September 2011
- Authors
- D. Frost; S. Bryant
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 52
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 7214
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 6373MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Control Plane FrameworkCurrent
September 2011
- RFC 6375A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport NetworksCurrent
September 2011
- RFC 6372MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability FrameworkCurrent
September 2011
- RFC 6371Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport NetworksUpdated
September 2011
- RFC 6370MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) IdentifiersCurrent
September 2011
- RFC 6378MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear ProtectionUpdated
October 2011
- RFC 6368Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)Updated
September 2011
- RFC 6361PPP Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Protocol Control ProtocolCurrent
August 2011
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?