RFC 8403: A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane Monitoring System
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document describes features of an MPLS path monitoring system and related use cases. Segment-based routing enables a scalable and simple method to monitor data-plane liveliness of the complete set of paths belonging to a single domain. The MPLS monitoring system adds features to the traditional MPLS ping and Label Switched Path (LSP) trace, in a very complementary way. MPLS topology awareness reduces management and control-plane involvement of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) measurements while enabling new OAM features.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8403
- Published
- July 2018
- Authors
- R. Geib; C. Filsfils; C. Pignataro; N. Kumar
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 19
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8372MPLS Flow Identification ConsiderationsCurrent
May 2018
- RFC 8256Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment MonitoringCurrent
October 2017
- RFC 8924Service Function Chaining (SFC) Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) FrameworkCurrent
October 2020
- RFC 7759Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) PingCurrent
February 2016
- RFC 7571GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Lock Instruct and LoopbackCurrent
July 2015
- RFC 7487Configuration of Proactive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Functions for MPLS-Based Transport Networks Using RSVP-TECurrent
March 2015
- RFC 7455Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): Fault ManagementCurrent
March 2015
- RFC 9546Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data PlaneCurrent
February 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?