{"draft":"draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-06","doc_id":"RFC4874","title":"Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)","authors":["CY. Lee","A. Farrel","S. De Cnodder"],"format":["ASCII","HTML"],"page_count":"27","pub_status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","source":"Common Control and Measurement Plane","abstract":"This document specifies ways to communicate route exclusions during\r\npath setup using Resource ReserVation\r\nProtocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE).\r\n\r\nThe RSVP-TE specification, \"RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP\r\nTunnels\" (RFC 3209) and GMPLS extensions to RSVP-TE, \"Generalized\r\nMulti-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation\r\nProtocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions\" (RFC 3473) allow\r\nabstract nodes and resources to be explicitly included in a path\r\nsetup, but not to be explicitly excluded.\r\n\r\nIn some networks where precise explicit paths are not computed at the\r\nhead end, it may be useful to specify and signal abstract nodes and\r\nresources that are to be explicitly excluded from routes.  These\r\nexclusions may apply to the whole path, or to parts of a path between\r\ntwo abstract nodes specified in an explicit path.  How Shared Risk\r\nLink Groups (SRLGs) can be excluded is also specified in this\r\ndocument.  [STANDARDS-TRACK]","pub_date":"April 2007","keywords":["srlg","shared risk link groups"],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":["RFC3209","RFC3473"],"updated_by":["RFC6001","RFC8390"],"see_also":[],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC4874","errata_url":"https:\/\/www.rfc-editor.org\/errata\/rfc4874"}