RFC 6391: Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Where the payload of a pseudowire comprises a number of distinct flows, it can be desirable to carry those flows over the Equal Cost Multiple Paths (ECMPs) that exist in the packet switched network. Most forwarding engines are able to generate a hash of the MPLS label stack and use this mechanism to balance MPLS flows over ECMPs. This document describes a method of identifying the flows, or flow groups, within pseudowires such that Label Switching Routers can balance flows at a finer granularity than individual pseudowires. The mechanism uses an additional label in the MPLS label stack. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6391
- Published
- November 2011
- Authors
- S. Bryant; C. Filsfils; U. Drafz; V. Kompella; J. Regan; S. Amante
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 19
- Also known as
- —
- Updated by:
- RFC 7274
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 6389MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDPCurrent
November 2011
- RFC 6388Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched PathsUpdated
November 2011
- RFC 6395An Interface Identifier (ID) Hello Option for PIMCurrent
October 2011
- RFC 6387GMPLS Asymmetric Bandwidth Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)Current
September 2011
- RFC 6378MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear ProtectionUpdated
October 2011
- RFC 6375A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport NetworksCurrent
September 2011
- RFC 6374Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS NetworksUpdated
September 2011
- RFC 6373MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Control Plane FrameworkCurrent
September 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?