Current state / use of OSPF-TE

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Wed Apr 29 07:16:17 UTC 2015

On 29/Apr/15 09:03, sthaug at wrote:

> I assume you mean RFC 3630 "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to
> OSPF Version 2"? This would be used by providers running MPLS, RSVP-TE
> and using OSPF as the IGP.
> As far as I can see it is supported by all major vendors. The reason
> you don't hear all that much about it is probably that a significant
> number of providers running MPLS and RSVP-TE use IS-IS as their IGP
> (we do).

Assuming the OP is referring to RFC 3630, I suppose you wouldn't hear
much about IS-IS either in this regard, since the TE extensions to IS-IS
and OSPF are not the final product. The final product would be MPLS-TE
itself. IS-IS and OSPF are just a ubiquitous way to get the TE
information across the backbone.


More information about the NANOG mailing list