RFC 6754: Protocol Independent Multicast Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Redirect
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
A Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) router uses the Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) procedure to select an upstream interface and router in order to build forwarding state. When there are equal cost multipaths (ECMPs), existing implementations often use hash algorithms to select a path. Such algorithms do not allow the spread of traffic among the ECMPs according to administrative metrics. This usually leads to inefficient or ineffective use of network resources. This document introduces the ECMP Redirect, a mechanism to improve the RPF procedure over ECMPs. It allows ECMP selection to be based on administratively selected metrics, such as data transmission delays, path preferences, and routing metrics. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6754
- Published
- October 2012
- Authors
- Y. Cai; L. Wei; H. Ou; V. Arya; S. Jethwani
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 12
- Also known as
- —
Referenced by
2 later RFCs formally update or obsolete part of this document.
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 6777Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) NetworksCurrent
November 2012
- RFC 6779Definition of Managed Objects for the Neighborhood Discovery ProtocolObsoleted
October 2012
- RFC 6780RSVP ASSOCIATION Object ExtensionsCurrent
October 2012
- RFC 6723Update of the Pseudowire Control-Word Negotiation MechanismObsoleted
September 2012
- RFC 6720The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)Updated
August 2012
- RFC 6719The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective FunctionCurrent
September 2012
- RFC 6718Pseudowire RedundancyCurrent
August 2012
- RFC 6790The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS ForwardingUpdated
November 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?