RFC 8796: RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document updates RFC 4090 for the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) procedures defined for facility backup protection. The updates include extensions that reduce the amount of signaling and processing that occurs during Fast Reroute (FRR); as a result, scalability when undergoing FRR convergence after a link or node failure is improved. These extensions allow the RSVP message exchange between the Point of Local Repair (PLR) and the Merge Point (MP) nodes to be independent of the number of protected Label Switched Paths (LSPs) traversing between them when facility bypass FRR protection is used. The signaling extensions are fully backwards compatible with nodes that do not support them.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8796
- Published
- July 2020
- Authors
- M. Taillon; T. Saad; R. Gandhi; A. Deshmukh; M. Jork; V. Beeram
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 18
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 4090
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8795YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE) TopologiesCurrent
August 2020
- RFC 8800Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity Constraint SignalingUpdated
July 2020
- RFC 8786Updated Rules for Processing Stateful PCE Request Parameters FlagsCurrent
May 2020
- RFC 8810Revision to Capability Codes Registration ProceduresCurrent
August 2020
- RFC 8780The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA)Updated
July 2020
- RFC 8779Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLSUpdated
July 2020
- RFC 8814Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using the Border Gateway Protocol - Link StateCurrent
August 2020
- RFC 8776Common YANG Data Types for Traffic EngineeringCurrent
June 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?