File formats:

Status:

INFORMATIONAL

Authors:

H. Sitaraman, Ed.
V. Beeram
I. Minei
S. Sivabalan

Stream:

IETF

Source:

teas (rtg)

Cite this RFC: TXT  |  XML  |   BibTeX

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8426

Discuss this RFC: Send questions or comments to the mailing list teas@ietf.org

Other actions: Submit Errata  |  Find IPR Disclosures from the IETF  |  View History of RFC 8426

Abstract

Operators are looking to introduce services over Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in networks running Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) LSPs. In some instances, operators are also migrating existing services from RSVP-TE to SR LSPs. For example, there might be certain services that are well suited for SR and need to coexist with RSVP-TE in the same network. Such introduction or migration of traffic to SR might require coexistence with RSVP-TE in the same network for an extended period of time, depending on the operator's intent. The following document provides solution options for keeping the traffic engineering database consistent across the network, accounting for the different bandwidth utilization between SR and RSVP-TE.

For the definition of Status, see RFC 2026.

For the definition of Stream, see RFC 8729.