RFC 7394: Definition of Time to Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) and/or bidirectional co-routed Label Switched Path (LSP) from any node on the path of the MS-PW and/or bidirectional co-routed LSP. This document defines a TLV to address this shortcoming.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7394
- Published
- November 2014
- Authors
- S. Boutros; S. Sivabalan; G. Swallow; S. Saxena; V. Manral; S. Aldrin
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 8
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7392Explicit Path Routing for Dynamic Multi-Segment PseudowiresCurrent
December 2014
- RFC 7391Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Protocol ExtensionsCurrent
October 2014
- RFC 7399Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element ArchitectureCurrent
October 2014
- RFC 7387A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) NetworkCurrent
October 2014
- RFC 7385IANA Registry for P-Multicast Service Interface (PMSI) Tunnel Type Code PointsUpdated
October 2014
- RFC 7382Template for a Certification Practice Statement (CPS) for the Resource PKI (RPKI)Current
April 2015
- RFC 7408Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Model ExtensionCurrent
November 2014
- RFC 7379Problem Statement and Goals for Active-Active Connection at the Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) EdgeCurrent
October 2014
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?