RFC 7267: Dynamic Placement of Multi-Segment Pseudowires
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
RFC 5254 describes the service provider requirements for extending the reach of pseudowires (PWs) across multiple Packet Switched Network domains. A multi-segment PW is defined as a set of two or more contiguous PW segments that behave and function as a single point-to-point PW. This document describes extensions to the PW control protocol to dynamically place the segments of the multi-segment pseudowire among a set of Provider Edge (PE) routers. This document also updates RFC 6073 by updating the value of the Length field of the PW Switching Point PE Sub-TLV Type 0x06 to 14.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7267
- Published
- June 2014
- Authors
- L. Martini; M. Bocci; F. Balus
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 24
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 6073
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7309Redundancy Mechanism for Inter-domain VPLS ServiceCurrent
July 2014
- RFC 7026Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header of the MPLS Generic Associated ChannelCurrent
September 2013
- RFC 7769Media Access Control (MAC) Address Withdrawal over Static PseudowireCurrent
February 2016
- RFC 8104Pseudowire (PW) Endpoint Fast Failure ProtectionCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 8469Recommendation to Use the Ethernet Control WordCurrent
November 2018
- RFC 5641Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) Extended Circuit Status ValuesCurrent
August 2009
- RFC 5085Pseudowire Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for PseudowiresUpdated
December 2007
- RFC 4863Wildcard Pseudowire TypeCurrent
May 2007
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?