File formats:

Status:

INFORMATIONAL

Authors:

J. de Oliveira, Ed.
JP. Vasseur, Ed.
L. Chen
C. Scoglio

Stream:

INDEPENDENT

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML  |   BibTeX

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC4829

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org

Other actions: Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF  |  View History of RFC 4829

Abstract

When the establishment of a higher priority (Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path) TE LSP requires the preemption of a set of lower priority TE LSPs, a node has to make a local decision to select which TE LSPs will be preempted. The preempted LSPs are then rerouted by their respective \%Head-end Label Switch Router (LSR). This document presents a flexible policy that can be used to achieve different objectives: preempt the lowest priority LSPs; preempt the minimum number of LSPs; preempt the set of TE LSPs that provide the closest amount of bandwidth to the required bandwidth for the preempting TE LSPs (to minimize bandwidth wastage); preempt the LSPs that will have the maximum chance to get rerouted. Simulation results are given and a comparison among several different policies, with respect to preemption cascading, number of preempted LSPs, priority, wasted bandwidth and blocking probability is also included. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 8729.