RFC 7032: LDP Downstream-on-Demand in Seamless MPLS
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Seamless MPLS design enables a single IP/MPLS network to scale over core, metro, and access parts of a large packet network infrastructure using standardized IP/MPLS protocols. One of the key goals of Seamless MPLS is to meet requirements specific to access networks including high number of devices, device position in network topology, and compute and memory constraints that limit the amount of state access devices can hold. This can be achieved with LDP Downstream-on-Demand (DoD) label advertisement. This document describes LDP DoD use cases and lists required LDP DoD procedures in the context of Seamless MPLS design. In addition, a new optional TLV type in the LDP Label Request message is defined for fast-up convergence.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7032
- Published
- October 2013
- Authors
- T. Beckhaus; B. Decraene; K. Tiruveedhula; M. Konstantynowicz; L. Martini
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 35
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7026Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated ChannelCurrent
September 2013
- RFC 7038Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast NetworksCurrent
October 2013
- RFC 7025Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCECurrent
September 2013
- RFC 7024Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNsCurrent
October 2013
- RFC 7041Extensions to the Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider Edge (PE) Model for Provider Backbone BridgingCurrent
November 2013
- RFC 7023MPLS and Ethernet Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) InterworkingCurrent
October 2013
- RFC 7052Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) MIBCurrent
October 2013
- RFC 7054Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations for Per-Interface Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)Current
November 2013
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?