RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
In certain networks, it is critical to consider network performance criteria when selecting the path for an explicitly routed RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP). Such performance criteria can include latency, jitter, and loss or other indications such as the conformance to link performance objectives and non-RSVP TE traffic load. This specification describes how a path computation function may use network performance data, such as is advertised via the OSPF and IS-IS TE metric extensions (defined outside the scope of this document) to perform such path selections.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7823
- Published
- May 2016
- Authors
- A. Atlas; J. Drake; S. Giacalone; S. Previdi
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 10
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7025Requirements for GMPLS Applications of PCECurrent
September 2013
- RFC 3480Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol)Current
February 2003
- RFC 7917Advertising Node Administrative Tags in IS-ISCurrent
July 2016
- RFC 7399Unanswered Questions in the Path Computation Element ArchitectureCurrent
October 2014
- RFC 8282Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic EngineeringCurrent
December 2017
- RFC 8413Framework for Scheduled Use of ResourcesCurrent
July 2018
- RFC 8685Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) ArchitectureUpdated
December 2019
- RFC 8735Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in a Native IP NetworkCurrent
February 2020
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?