RFC 6401: RSVP Extensions for Admission Priority
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Some applications require the ability to provide an elevated probability of session establishment to specific sessions in times of network congestion. When supported over the Internet Protocol suite, this may be facilitated through a network-layer admission control solution that supports prioritized access to resources (e.g., bandwidth). These resources may be explicitly set aside for prioritized sessions, or may be shared with other sessions. This document specifies extensions to the Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP) that can be used to support such an admission priority capability at the network layer. Based on current security concerns, these extensions are intended for use in a single administrative domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6401
- Published
- October 2011
- Authors
- F. Le Faucheur; J. Polk; K. Carlberg
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- wit
- Pages
- 32
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6411Applicability of Keying Methods for RSVP SecurityCurrent
October 2011
- RFC 6429TCP Sender Clarification for Persist ConditionObsoleted
December 2011
- RFC 6354Forward-Shifted RTP Redundancy Payload SupportCurrent
August 2011
- RFC 6458Sockets API Extensions for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)Current
December 2011
- RFC 6335Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number RegistryCurrent
August 2011
- RFC 6298Computing TCP's Retransmission TimerCurrent
June 2011
- RFC 6284Port Mapping between Unicast and Multicast RTP SessionsCurrent
June 2011
- RFC 6525Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream ReconfigurationCurrent
March 2012
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?