RFC 6777: Label Switched Path (LSP) Data Path Delay Metrics in Generalized MPLS and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Networks
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
When setting up a Label Switched Path (LSP) in Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) networks, the completion of the signaling process does not necessarily mean that the cross-connection along the LSP has been programmed accordingly and in a timely manner. Meanwhile, the completion of the signaling process may be used by LSP users or applications that control their use as an indication that the data path has become usable. The existence of the inconsistency between the signaling messages and cross-connection programming, and the possible failure of cross- connection programming, if not properly treated, will result in data loss or even application failure. Characterization of this performance can thus help designers to improve the way in which LSPs are used and to make applications or tools that depend on and use LSPs more robust. This document defines a series of performance metrics to evaluate the connectivity of the data path in the signaling process. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6777
- Published
- November 2012
- Authors
- W. Sun; G. Zhang; J. Gao; G. Xie; R. Papneja
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 29
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4258Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)Current
November 2005
- RFC 9545Path Segment Identifier in MPLS-Based Segment Routing NetworksCurrent
February 2024
- RFC 8972Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Optional ExtensionsCurrent
January 2021
- RFC 9408A YANG Network Data Model for Service Attachment Points (SAPs)Current
June 2023
- RFC 4126Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering & Performance ComparisonsCurrent
June 2005
- RFC 9533One-Way and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on a Link Aggregation GroupCurrent
January 2024
- RFC 9534Simple Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Extensions for Performance Measurement on a Link Aggregation GroupCurrent
January 2024
- RFC 9544Precision Availability Metrics (PAMs) for Services Governed by Service Level Objectives (SLOs)Current
March 2024
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?