MPLS
MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching): architecture, encapsulation, operations
Within this page
MPLS subjects:
- GMPLS172 RFCs
- LDP64 RFCs
- CR-LDP7 RFCs
- MPLS-TP50 RFCs
- pseudowire83 RFCs
MPLS RFCs (226)
RFC 9994: MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Specification Including In-Stack Network Actions and Data
Proposed Standard- J. Rajamanickam
- R. Gandhi
- R. Zigler
- H. Song
- K. Kompella
- June 2026
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack for carrying network actions and Ancillary Data (AD) in the MPLS label stack. MNA can be used to influence packet-forwarding decisions, carry additional Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) information in the MPLS packet, or perform user-defined operations.
This document updates RFC 9789 to refine the list of pieces of information that must be included in any document that defines an MNA.
Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack for carrying network actions and Ancillary Data (AD) in the MPLS label stack. MNA can be used to influence packet-forwarding decisions, carry additional Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) information in the MPLS packet, or perform user-defined operations.
This document updates RFC 9789 to refine the list of pieces of information that must be included in any document that defines an MNA.
RFC 9961: MPLS Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy Ping
Proposed Standard- H. Bidgoli
- Z. Ali
- Z. Zhang
- A. Budhiraja
- D. Voyer
- April 2026
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are used to define and manage explicit P2MP paths within a network. These policies are typically calculated via a controller-based mechanism and installed via, e.g., a Path Computation Element (PCE). In other cases, these policies can be installed using the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) / YANG or a Command Line Interface (CLI). They are used to steer Multicast traffic along optimized paths from a Root to a set of Leaf routers.
This document defines extensions to ping and traceroute mechanisms for an SR P2MP Policy with MPLS encapsulation to provide Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) capabilities. The extensions enable operators to verify connectivity, diagnose failures, and troubleshoot forwarding issues within SR P2MP Policy Multicast trees.
By introducing new mechanisms for detecting failures and validating path integrity, this document enhances the operational robustness of P2MP Multicast deployments. Additionally, it ensures that existing MPLS and SR-based OAM tools can be effectively applied to networks utilizing SR P2MP Policies.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are used to define and manage explicit P2MP paths within a network. These policies are typically calculated via a controller-based mechanism and installed via, e.g., a Path Computation Element (PCE). In other cases, these policies can be installed using the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) / YANG or a Command Line Interface (CLI). They are used to steer Multicast traffic along optimized paths from a Root to a set of Leaf routers.
This document defines extensions to ping and traceroute mechanisms for an SR P2MP Policy with MPLS encapsulation to provide Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) capabilities. The extensions enable operators to verify connectivity, diagnose failures, and troubleshoot forwarding issues within SR P2MP Policy Multicast trees.
By introducing new mechanisms for detecting failures and validating path integrity, this document enhances the operational robustness of P2MP Multicast deployments. Additionally, it ensures that existing MPLS and SR-based OAM tools can be effectively applied to networks utilizing SR P2MP Policies.
RFC 9902: A YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing over the MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- S. Litkowski
- Y. Qu
- A. Lindem
- I. Chen
- J. Tantsura
- December 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to manage IS-IS extensions for Segment Routing (SR) over the MPLS data plane.
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to manage IS-IS extensions for Segment Routing (SR) over the MPLS data plane.
RFC 9903: A YANG Data Model for OSPF Segment Routing over the MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- Y. Qu
- A. Lindem
- J. Zhang
- I. Chen
- December 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to manage OSPF extensions for Segment Routing over the MPLS data plane.
Abstract
This document defines a YANG data model that can be used to manage OSPF extensions for Segment Routing over the MPLS data plane.
RFC 9889: A Realization of Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/MPLS Technologies
Informational- K. Szarkowicz
- R. Roberts
- J. Lucek
- M. Boucadair
- LM. Contreras
- November 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Network slicing is a feature that was introduced by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in Mobile Networks. Realization of 5G slicing implies requirements for all mobile domains, including the Radio Access Network (RAN), Core Network (CN), and Transport Network (TN).
This document describes a network slice realization model for IP/MPLS networks with a focus on the Transport Network fulfilling the service objectives for 5G slicing connectivity. The realization model reuses many building blocks commonly used in service provider networks at the current time.
Abstract
Network slicing is a feature that was introduced by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) in Mobile Networks. Realization of 5G slicing implies requirements for all mobile domains, including the Radio Access Network (RAN), Core Network (CN), and Transport Network (TN).
This document describes a network slice realization model for IP/MPLS networks with a focus on the Transport Network fulfilling the service objectives for 5G slicing connectivity. The realization model reuses many building blocks commonly used in service provider networks at the current time.
RFC 9857: Advertisement of Segment Routing Policies Using BGP - Link State
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- K. Talaulikar
- J. Dong
- H. Gredler
- J. Tantsura
- October 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism used to collect Segment Routing (SR) Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) updates. Such information can be used by external components for path computation, reoptimization, service placement, network visualization, etc.
Abstract
This document describes a mechanism used to collect Segment Routing (SR) Policy information that is locally available in a node and advertise it into BGP - Link State (BGP-LS) updates. Such information can be used by external components for path computation, reoptimization, service placement, network visualization, etc.
RFC 9884: Label Switched Path Ping for Segment Routing Path Segment Identifier with MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- X. Min
- S. Peng
- L. Gong
- R. Gandhi
- C. Pignataro
- October 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing to steer packets through an ordered list of instructions called "segments". SR can be instantiated over the MPLS data plane. Path Segment Identifiers (PSIDs) are used to identify and correlate bidirectional or end-to-end paths in SR networks. This document defines procedures (i.e., six new Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack sub-TLVs) for the use of LSP Ping to support connectivity verification and fault isolation for SR paths that include PSIDs. The mechanisms described enable the validation and tracing of SR paths with Path SIDs in MPLS networks, complementing existing SR-MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) capabilities.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages source routing to steer packets through an ordered list of instructions called "segments". SR can be instantiated over the MPLS data plane. Path Segment Identifiers (PSIDs) are used to identify and correlate bidirectional or end-to-end paths in SR networks. This document defines procedures (i.e., six new Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack sub-TLVs) for the use of LSP Ping to support connectivity verification and fault isolation for SR paths that include PSIDs. The mechanisms described enable the validation and tracing of SR paths with Path SIDs in MPLS networks, complementing existing SR-MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) capabilities.
RFC 9860: Multicast-Only Fast Reroute (MoFRR) Based on Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI-LFA) Fast Reroute
Informational- Y. Liu
- M. McBride
- Z. Zhang
- J. Xie
- C. Lin
- October 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI-LFA) mechanisms with Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR) for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM). The TI-LFA provides Fast Reroute (FRR) protection for unicast traffic in IP networks by precomputing backup paths that avoid potential failures. By integrating TI-LFA with MoFRR, this document extends the benefits of FRR mechanisms to multicast traffic, enabling enhanced resilience and minimized packet loss in multicast networks. The document outlines an optional approach to implement TI-LFA in conjunction with MoFRR for PIM, ensuring that multicast traffic is rapidly rerouted in the event of a failure.
Abstract
This document specifies the use of Topology Independent Loop-Free Alternate (TI-LFA) mechanisms with Multicast-only Fast Reroute (MoFRR) for Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM). The TI-LFA provides Fast Reroute (FRR) protection for unicast traffic in IP networks by precomputing backup paths that avoid potential failures. By integrating TI-LFA with MoFRR, this document extends the benefits of FRR mechanisms to multicast traffic, enabling enhanced resilience and minimized packet loss in multicast networks. The document outlines an optional approach to implement TI-LFA in conjunction with MoFRR for PIM, ensuring that multicast traffic is rapidly rerouted in the event of a failure.
RFC 9789: MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) Framework
Informational- L. Andersson
- S. Bryant
- M. Bocci
- T. Li
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes an architectural framework for MPLS Network Action (MNA) technologies. MNA technologies are used to indicate actions that impact the forwarding or other processing (such as monitoring) of the packet along the Label Switched Path (LSP) of the packet and to transfer any additional data needed for these actions.
This document provides the foundation for the development of a common set of network actions and information elements supporting additional operational models and capabilities of MPLS networks.
Abstract
This document describes an architectural framework for MPLS Network Action (MNA) technologies. MNA technologies are used to indicate actions that impact the forwarding or other processing (such as monitoring) of the packet along the Label Switched Path (LSP) of the packet and to transfer any additional data needed for these actions.
This document provides the foundation for the development of a common set of network actions and information elements supporting additional operational models and capabilities of MPLS networks.
RFC 9790: IANA Registry and Processing Recommendations for the First Nibble Following a Label Stack
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- S. Bryant
- M. Bocci
- G. Mirsky
- L. Andersson
- J. Dong
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document creates a new IANA registry (called the "Post-Stack First Nibble" registry) for the first nibble (4-bit field) immediately following an MPLS label stack. Furthermore, this document presents some requirements for registering new values and making the processing of MPLS packets easier and more robust.
The relationship between the IANA "Post-Stack First Nibble" registry and the "IP Version Numbers" registry (RFC 2780) is described in this document.
This document updates RFC 4928 by deprecating the heuristic method for identifying the type of packet encapsulated in MPLS.
Abstract
This document creates a new IANA registry (called the "Post-Stack First Nibble" registry) for the first nibble (4-bit field) immediately following an MPLS label stack. Furthermore, this document presents some requirements for registering new values and making the processing of MPLS packets easier and more robust.
The relationship between the IANA "Post-Stack First Nibble" registry and the "IP Version Numbers" registry (RFC 2780) is described in this document.
This document updates RFC 4928 by deprecating the heuristic method for identifying the type of packet encapsulated in MPLS.
RFC 9791: Use Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and Ancillary Data
Informational- T. Saad
- K. Makhijani
- H. Song
- G. Mirsky
- July 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document presents use cases that have a common feature that may be addressed by encoding network action indicators and associated ancillary data within MPLS packets. There is community interest in extending the MPLS data plane to carry such indicators and ancillary data to address these use cases.
The use cases described in this document are not an exhaustive set but rather the ones that have been actively discussed by members of the IETF MPLS, PALS, and DetNet Working Groups from the beginning of work on MPLS Network Action (MNA) until the publication of this document.
Abstract
This document presents use cases that have a common feature that may be addressed by encoding network action indicators and associated ancillary data within MPLS packets. There is community interest in extending the MPLS data plane to carry such indicators and ancillary data to address these use cases.
The use cases described in this document are not an exhaustive set but rather the ones that have been actively discussed by members of the IETF MPLS, PALS, and DetNet Working Groups from the beginning of work on MPLS Network Action (MNA) until the publication of this document.
RFC 9780: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for Multipoint Networks over Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- G. Mirsky
- G. Mishra
- D. Eastlake 3rd
- May 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes procedures for using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for multipoint networks to detect data plane failures in point-to-multipoint MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-multipoint policies with an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane.
Furthermore, this document updates RFC 8562 by recommending the use of an IPv6 address from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix address block 100:0:0:1::/64 and discouraging the use of an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.
In addition, this document describes the applicability of LSP Ping (as an in-band solution) and the control plane (as an out-of-band solution) to bootstrap a BFD session. The document also describes the behavior of the active tail for head notification.
Abstract
This document describes procedures for using Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for multipoint networks to detect data plane failures in point-to-multipoint MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and Segment Routing (SR) point-to-multipoint policies with an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane.
Furthermore, this document updates RFC 8562 by recommending the use of an IPv6 address from the Dummy IPv6 Prefix address block 100:0:0:1::/64 and discouraging the use of an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.
In addition, this document describes the applicability of LSP Ping (as an in-band solution) and the control plane (as an out-of-band solution) to bootstrap a BFD session. The document also describes the behavior of the active tail for head notification.
RFC 9779: Performance Measurement for Segment Routing Networks with the MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- R. Gandhi
- C. Filsfils
- D. Voyer
- S. Salsano
- M. Chen
- May 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay measurement techniques (originally defined in RFCs 6374, 7876, and 9341) within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS data plane, also referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). SR enables the forwarding of packets through an ordered list of instructions, known as segments, which are imposed at the ingress node. This document defines the procedures and extensions necessary to perform accurate measurement of packet loss and delay in SR-MPLS environments, ensuring that network operators can effectively measure and maintain the quality of service across their SR-based MPLS networks. This includes coverage of links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths, as well as SR Policies.
Abstract
This document specifies the application of the MPLS loss and delay measurement techniques (originally defined in RFCs 6374, 7876, and 9341) within Segment Routing (SR) networks that utilize the MPLS data plane, also referred to as Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS). SR enables the forwarding of packets through an ordered list of instructions, known as segments, which are imposed at the ingress node. This document defines the procedures and extensions necessary to perform accurate measurement of packet loss and delay in SR-MPLS environments, ensuring that network operators can effectively measure and maintain the quality of service across their SR-based MPLS networks. This includes coverage of links and end-to-end SR-MPLS paths, as well as SR Policies.
RFC 9705: Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP Fast Reroute Facility Protection
Proposed Standard- C. Ramachandran
- T. Saad
- D. Pacella
- March 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The RSVP-TE Fast Reroute (FRR) extensions specified in RFC 4090 define two local repair techniques to reroute Label Switched Path (LSP) traffic over pre-established backup tunnels. Facility backup method allows one or more LSPs traversing a connected link or node to be protected using a bypass tunnel. The many-to-one nature of local repair technique is attractive from a scalability point of view. This document enumerates facility backup procedures in RFC 4090 that rely on refresh timeout, hence, making facility backup method refresh-interval dependent. The RSVP-TE extensions defined in this document will enhance the facility backup protection mechanism by making the corresponding procedures refresh-interval independent, and hence, compatible with the Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified in RFC 8370. Hence, this document updates RFC 4090 in order to support the RI-RSVP capability specified in RFC 8370.
Abstract
The RSVP-TE Fast Reroute (FRR) extensions specified in RFC 4090 define two local repair techniques to reroute Label Switched Path (LSP) traffic over pre-established backup tunnels. Facility backup method allows one or more LSPs traversing a connected link or node to be protected using a bypass tunnel. The many-to-one nature of local repair technique is attractive from a scalability point of view. This document enumerates facility backup procedures in RFC 4090 that rely on refresh timeout, hence, making facility backup method refresh-interval dependent. The RSVP-TE extensions defined in this document will enhance the facility backup protection mechanism by making the corresponding procedures refresh-interval independent, and hence, compatible with the Refresh-Interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) capability specified in RFC 8370. Hence, this document updates RFC 4090 in order to support the RI-RSVP capability specified in RFC 8370.
RFC 9714: Encapsulation for MPLS Performance Measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method
Proposed Standard- W. Cheng
- X. Min
- T. Zhou
- J. Dai
- Y. Peleg
- February 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance
measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method, which performs
flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS
traffic.
Abstract
This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance
measurement with the Alternate-Marking Method, which performs
flow-based packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS
traffic.
RFC 9716: Mechanisms for MPLS Ping and Traceroute Procedures in Inter-Domain Segment Routing Networks
Proposed Standard- S. Hegde
- K. Arora
- M. Srivastava
- S. Ninan
- N. Kumar
- February 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and can be directly applied to the use of an MPLS data plane. A Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) network may consist of multiple IGP domains or multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes) under the control of the same organization. It is useful to have the Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute procedures when an SR end-to-end path traverses multiple ASes or IGP domains. This document outlines mechanisms to enable efficient LSP ping and traceroute procedures in inter-AS and inter-domain SR-MPLS networks. This is achieved through a straightforward extension to the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocol, relying solely on data plane forwarding for handling echo replies on transit nodes.
Abstract
The Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and can be directly applied to the use of an MPLS data plane. A Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) network may consist of multiple IGP domains or multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes) under the control of the same organization. It is useful to have the Label Switched Path (LSP) ping and traceroute procedures when an SR end-to-end path traverses multiple ASes or IGP domains. This document outlines mechanisms to enable efficient LSP ping and traceroute procedures in inter-AS and inter-domain SR-MPLS networks. This is achieved through a straightforward extension to the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocol, relying solely on data plane forwarding for handling echo replies on transit nodes.
RFC 9717: A Routing Architecture for Satellite Networks
Informational- T. Li
- January 2025
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
Satellite networks present some interesting challenges for packet networking. The entire topology is continually in motion, with links far less reliable than what is common in terrestrial networks. Some changes to link connectivity can be anticipated due to orbital dynamics.
This document proposes a scalable routing architecture for satellite networks based on existing routing protocols and mechanisms that is enhanced with scheduled link connectivity change information. This document proposes no protocol changes.
This document presents the author's view and is neither the product of the IETF nor a consensus view of the community.
Abstract
Satellite networks present some interesting challenges for packet networking. The entire topology is continually in motion, with links far less reliable than what is common in terrestrial networks. Some changes to link connectivity can be anticipated due to orbital dynamics.
This document proposes a scalable routing architecture for satellite networks based on existing routing protocols and mechanisms that is enhanced with scheduled link connectivity change information. This document proposes no protocol changes.
This document presents the author's view and is neither the product of the IETF nor a consensus view of the community.
RFC 9702: YANG Data Model for Maximum Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD) Types and MPLS MSD
Proposed Standard- Y. Qu
- A. Lindem
- S. Litkowski
- J. Tantsura
- January 2025
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines two YANG modules. The first module is the initial version of the IANA-maintained YANG module for Maximum Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD) Types, which includes identities for both the MPLS data plane and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) data plane. The second module augments the IETF MPLS YANG data model to provide support for MPLS MSDs as defined in RFCs 8476 and 8491.
Abstract
This document defines two YANG modules. The first module is the initial version of the IANA-maintained YANG module for Maximum Segment Identifier (SID) Depth (MSD) Types, which includes identities for both the MPLS data plane and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) data plane. The second module augments the IETF MPLS YANG data model to provide support for MPLS MSDs as defined in RFCs 8476 and 8491.
RFC 9703: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- S. Hegde
- M. Srivastava
- K. Arora
- S. Ninan
- X. Xu
- December 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing (SR) that solves the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g., a Software-Defined Network (SDN) controller, to program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires the node or the SDN controller to program 1) the PeerNode Segment Identifier (SID) describing a session between two nodes, 2) the PeerAdj SID describing the link or links that are used by the sessions between peer nodes, and 3) the PeerSet SID describing any connected interface to any peer in the related group. This document provides new sub-TLVs for EPE-SIDs that are used in the Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 1) in MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures.
Abstract
Egress Peer Engineering (EPE) is an application of Segment Routing (SR) that solves the problem of egress peer selection. The SR-based BGP-EPE solution allows a centralized controller, e.g., a Software-Defined Network (SDN) controller, to program any egress peer. The EPE solution requires the node or the SDN controller to program 1) the PeerNode Segment Identifier (SID) describing a session between two nodes, 2) the PeerAdj SID describing the link or links that are used by the sessions between peer nodes, and 3) the PeerSet SID describing any connected interface to any peer in the related group. This document provides new sub-TLVs for EPE-SIDs that are used in the Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 1) in MPLS Ping and Traceroute procedures.
RFC 9655: Egress Validation in Label Switched Path Ping and Traceroute Mechanisms
Proposed Standard- D. Rathi
- S. Hegde
- K. Arora
- Z. Ali
- N. Nainar
- November 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The MPLS ping and traceroute mechanisms described in RFC 8029 and the related extensions for Segment Routing (SR) defined in RFC 8287 are highly valuable for validating control plane and data plane synchronization. In certain environments, only some intermediate or transit nodes may have been upgraded to support these validation procedures. A straightforward MPLS ping and traceroute mechanism allows traversal of any path without validation of the control plane state. RFC 8029 supports this mechanism with the Nil Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). The procedures outlined in RFC 8029 are primarily applicable when the Nil FEC is used as an intermediate FEC in the FEC stack. However, challenges arise when all labels in the label stack are represented using the Nil FEC.
This document introduces a new Type-Length-Value (TLV) as an extension to the existing Nil FEC. It describes MPLS ping and traceroute procedures using the Nil FEC with this extension to address and overcome these challenges.
Abstract
The MPLS ping and traceroute mechanisms described in RFC 8029 and the related extensions for Segment Routing (SR) defined in RFC 8287 are highly valuable for validating control plane and data plane synchronization. In certain environments, only some intermediate or transit nodes may have been upgraded to support these validation procedures. A straightforward MPLS ping and traceroute mechanism allows traversal of any path without validation of the control plane state. RFC 8029 supports this mechanism with the Nil Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). The procedures outlined in RFC 8029 are primarily applicable when the Nil FEC is used as an intermediate FEC in the FEC stack. However, challenges arise when all labels in the label stack are represented using the Nil FEC.
This document introduces a new Type-Length-Value (TLV) as an extension to the existing Nil FEC. It describes MPLS ping and traceroute procedures using the Nil FEC with this extension to address and overcome these challenges.
RFC 9613: Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions (MNAs)
Informational- M. Bocci
- S. Bryant
- J. Drake
- August 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies requirements for the development of MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) that affect the forwarding or other processing of MPLS packets. These requirements are informed by a number of proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the labeled packet to allow such actions to be performed, either by a transit or terminating Label Switching Router (i.e., the Label Edge Router - LER).
Abstract
This document specifies requirements for the development of MPLS Network Actions (MNAs) that affect the forwarding or other processing of MPLS packets. These requirements are informed by a number of proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the labeled packet to allow such actions to be performed, either by a transit or terminating Label Switching Router (i.e., the Label Edge Router - LER).
RFC 9612: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) Reverse Path for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Experimental- G. Mirsky
- J. Tantsura
- I. Varlashkin
- M. Chen
- July 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to be able to monitor a wide variety of encapsulations of paths between systems. When a BFD session monitors an explicitly routed unidirectional path, there may be a need to direct the egress BFD peer to use a specific path for the reverse direction of the BFD session. This document describes an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) echo request that allows a BFD system to request that the remote BFD peer transmit BFD control packets over the specified LSP.
Abstract
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is expected to be able to monitor a wide variety of encapsulations of paths between systems. When a BFD session monitors an explicitly routed unidirectional path, there may be a need to direct the egress BFD peer to use a specific path for the reverse direction of the BFD session. This document describes an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) echo request that allows a BFD system to request that the remote BFD peer transmit BFD control packets over the specified LSP.
RFC 9571: Extension of RFC 6374-Based Performance Measurement Using Synonymous Flow Labels
Proposed Standard- S. Bryant
- G. Swallow
- M. Chen
- G. Fioccola
- G. Mirsky
- May 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 6374 describes methods of making loss and delay measurements on Label Switched Paths (LSPs) primarily as they are used in MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) networks. This document describes a method of extending the performance measurements (specified in RFC 6374) from flows carried over MPLS-TP to flows carried over generic MPLS LSPs. In particular, it extends the technique to allow loss and delay measurements to be made on multipoint-to-point LSPs and introduces some additional techniques to allow more sophisticated measurements to be made in both MPLS-TP and generic MPLS networks.
Abstract
RFC 6374 describes methods of making loss and delay measurements on Label Switched Paths (LSPs) primarily as they are used in MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) networks. This document describes a method of extending the performance measurements (specified in RFC 6374) from flows carried over MPLS-TP to flows carried over generic MPLS LSPs. In particular, it extends the technique to allow loss and delay measurements to be made on multipoint-to-point LSPs and introduces some additional techniques to allow more sophisticated measurements to be made in both MPLS-TP and generic MPLS networks.
RFC 9570: Deprecating the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- R. Bonica
- G. Mirsky
- May 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The MPLS echo request and MPLS echo response messages, defined in RFC 8029, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" (usually referred to as LSP ping), are encapsulated in IP packets with headers that include a Router Alert Option (RAO). In actual deployments, the RAO was neither required nor used. Furthermore, RFC 6398 identifies security vulnerabilities associated with the RAO in non-controlled environments, e.g., the case of using the MPLS echo request/reply as inter-area Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), and recommends against its use outside of controlled environments.
Therefore, this document retires the RAO for MPLS OAM and updates RFC 8029 to remove the RAO from LSP ping message encapsulations. Furthermore, this document explains why RFC 7506 has been reclassified as Historic.
Also, this document recommends the use of an IPv6 loopback address (::1/128) as the IPv6 destination address for an MPLS echo request message.
Abstract
The MPLS echo request and MPLS echo response messages, defined in RFC 8029, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" (usually referred to as LSP ping), are encapsulated in IP packets with headers that include a Router Alert Option (RAO). In actual deployments, the RAO was neither required nor used. Furthermore, RFC 6398 identifies security vulnerabilities associated with the RAO in non-controlled environments, e.g., the case of using the MPLS echo request/reply as inter-area Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), and recommends against its use outside of controlled environments.
Therefore, this document retires the RAO for MPLS OAM and updates RFC 8029 to remove the RAO from LSP ping message encapsulations. Furthermore, this document explains why RFC 7506 has been reclassified as Historic.
Also, this document recommends the use of an IPv6 loopback address (::1/128) as the IPv6 destination address for an MPLS echo request message.
RFC 9566: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) via MPLS over UDP/IP
Informational- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- A. Malis
- April 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes how the DetNet IP data plane can support the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) built on the existing MPLS PREOF solution defined for the DetNet MPLS data plane and the mechanisms defined by MPLS-over-UDP technology.
Abstract
This document describes how the DetNet IP data plane can support the Packet Replication, Elimination, and Ordering Functions (PREOF) built on the existing MPLS PREOF solution defined for the DetNet MPLS data plane and the mechanisms defined by MPLS-over-UDP technology.
RFC 9546: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) with the MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- G. Mirsky
- M. Chen
- B. Varga
- February 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines format and usage principles of the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service Associated Channel can be used to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and measure performance metrics.
Abstract
This document defines format and usage principles of the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) service Associated Channel over a DetNet network with the MPLS data plane. The DetNet service Associated Channel can be used to carry test packets of active Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) protocols that are used to detect DetNet failures and measure performance metrics.
RFC 9545: Path Segment Identifier in MPLS-Based Segment Routing Networks
Proposed Standard- W. Cheng
- H. Li
- C. Li
- R. Gandhi
- R. Zigler
- February 2024
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) path is identified by an SR segment list. A subset of segments from the segment list cannot be leveraged to distinguish one SR path from another as they may be partially congruent. SR path identification is a prerequisite for various use cases such as performance measurement and end-to-end 1+1 path protection.
In an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane, an egress node cannot determine on which SR path a packet traversed the network from the label stack because the segment identifiers are removed from the label stack as the packet transits the network.
This document defines a Path Segment Identifier (PSID) to identify an SR path on the egress node of the path.
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) path is identified by an SR segment list. A subset of segments from the segment list cannot be leveraged to distinguish one SR path from another as they may be partially congruent. SR path identification is a prerequisite for various use cases such as performance measurement and end-to-end 1+1 path protection.
In an SR over MPLS (SR-MPLS) data plane, an egress node cannot determine on which SR path a packet traversed the network from the label stack because the segment identifiers are removed from the label stack as the packet transits the network.
This document defines a Path Segment Identifier (PSID) to identify an SR path on the egress node of the path.
RFC 9489: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping Mechanisms for EVPN and Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN)
Proposed Standard- P. Jain
- A. Sajassi
- S. Salam
- S. Boutros
- G. Mirsky
- November 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping is a widely deployed Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. This document describes mechanisms for detecting data plane failures using LSP Ping in MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN) networks.
Abstract
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping is a widely deployed Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. This document describes mechanisms for detecting data plane failures using LSP Ping in MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and Provider Backbone Bridging EVPN (PBB-EVPN) networks.
RFC 9491: Integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing for Service Function Chaining (SFC)
Proposed Standard- J. Guichard
- J. Tantsura
- November 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing (SR), as well as encapsulation details, to efficiently support Service Function Chaining (SFC) while maintaining separation of the service and transport planes as originally intended by the SFC architecture.
Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance context, and any associated metadata.
This integration demonstrates that the NSH and SR can work cooperatively and provide a network operator with the flexibility to use whichever transport technology makes sense in specific areas of their network infrastructure while still maintaining an end-to-end service plane using the NSH.
Abstract
This document describes the integration of the Network Service Header (NSH) and Segment Routing (SR), as well as encapsulation details, to efficiently support Service Function Chaining (SFC) while maintaining separation of the service and transport planes as originally intended by the SFC architecture.
Combining these technologies allows SR to be used for steering packets between Service Function Forwarders (SFFs) along a given Service Function Path (SFP), whereas the NSH is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the service plane, the SFC instance context, and any associated metadata.
This integration demonstrates that the NSH and SR can work cooperatively and provide a network operator with the flexibility to use whichever transport technology makes sense in specific areas of their network infrastructure while still maintaining an end-to-end service plane using the NSH.
RFC 9359: Echo Request/Reply for Enabled In Situ OAM (IOAM) Capabilities
Proposed Standard- X. Min
- G. Mirsky
- L. Bo
- April 2023
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/reply mechanisms, which can be used within an IOAM-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
Abstract
This document describes a generic format for use in echo request/reply mechanisms, which can be used within an IOAM-Domain, allowing the IOAM encapsulating node to discover the enabled IOAM capabilities of each IOAM transit and IOAM decapsulating node. The generic format is intended to be used with a variety of data planes such as IPv6, MPLS, Service Function Chain (SFC), and Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER).
RFC 9358: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths and Virtual Networks
Proposed Standard- Y. Lee
- H. Zheng
- D. Ceccarelli
- February 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes how to extend the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) association mechanism introduced by RFC 8697 to further associate sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with a higher-level structure such as a Virtual Network (VN) requested by a customer or application. This extended association mechanism can be used to facilitate control of a VN using the PCE architecture.
Abstract
This document describes how to extend the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) association mechanism introduced by RFC 8697 to further associate sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with a higher-level structure such as a Virtual Network (VN) requested by a customer or application. This extended association mechanism can be used to facilitate control of a VN using the PCE architecture.
RFC 9357: Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE
Proposed Standard- Q. Xiong
- February 2023
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned.
This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended Flag field.
Abstract
RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned.
This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended Flag field.
RFC 9256: Segment Routing Policy Architecture
Proposed Standard- C. Filsfils
- K. Talaulikar
- D. Voyer
- A. Bogdanov
- P. Mattes
- July 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.
This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.
This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.
RFC 9214: OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping
Proposed Standard- N. Nainar
- C. Pignataro
- M. Aissaoui
- April 2022
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" and "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registries under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry. RFC 8287 defines the code points for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocols.
This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV when the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) is OSPFv3. This document also updates RFC 8287 by clarifying that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2 and by defining the behavior when the Segment ID sub-TLV indicates the use of IPv6.
Abstract
IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" and "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registries under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry. RFC 8287 defines the code points for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocols.
This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV when the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) is OSPFv3. This document also updates RFC 8287 by clarifying that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2 and by defining the behavior when the Segment ID sub-TLV indicates the use of IPv6.
RFC 9160: Export of MPLS Segment Routing Label Type Information in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Informational- T. Graf
- December 2021
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control plane protocol is used within a Segment Routing domain. In particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX mplsTopLabelType Information Element for Path Computation Element (PCE), IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP MPLS Segment Routing extensions.
Abstract
This document introduces new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) code points to identify which traffic is being forwarded based on which MPLS control plane protocol is used within a Segment Routing domain. In particular, this document defines five code points for the IPFIX mplsTopLabelType Information Element for Path Computation Element (PCE), IS-IS, OSPFv2, OSPFv3, and BGP MPLS Segment Routing extensions.
RFC 9056: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IP over MPLS
Proposed Standard- B. Varga
- L. Berger
- D. Fedyk
- S. Bryant
- J. Korhonen
- October 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when encapsulating IP over an MPLS packet-switched network.
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when encapsulating IP over an MPLS packet-switched network.
RFC 9085: Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- K. Talaulikar
- C. Filsfils
- H. Gredler
- M. Chen
- August 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols, e.g., by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3) within IGP topologies.
This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) address family in order to carry SR information via BGP.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by routing protocols, e.g., by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS, OSPFv2, and OSPFv3) within IGP topologies.
This document defines extensions to the Border Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) address family in order to carry SR information via BGP.
RFC 9041: Updating the MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters IANA Registry
Proposed Standard- L. Andersson
- M. Chen
- C. Pignataro
- T. Saad
- July 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document updates RFCs 8029 and 8611, both of which define IANA registries for MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. In particular, the registration procedure "Private Use" (previously known as "Vendor Private Use") has been changed to "First Come First Served" for the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
It also updates the description of the procedures for the responses sent when an unknown or erroneous code point is found. The updates are to clarify and align this namespace with recent developments, e.g., aligning terminology with RFC 8126 instead of the now obsoleted RFC 5226 (both titled "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs").
Abstract
This document updates RFCs 8029 and 8611, both of which define IANA registries for MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. In particular, the registration procedure "Private Use" (previously known as "Vendor Private Use") has been changed to "First Come First Served" for the TLV and sub-TLV registries.
It also updates the description of the procedures for the responses sent when an unknown or erroneous code point is found. The updates are to clarify and align this namespace with recent developments, e.g., aligning terminology with RFC 8126 instead of the now obsoleted RFC 5226 (both titled "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs").
RFC 9059: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- R. Gandhi
- C. Barth
- B. Wen
- June 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an associated bidirectional LSP. These PCEP extensions can be applied either using a stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or using a stateless PCE. The PCEP procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling.
Abstract
This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an associated bidirectional LSP. These PCEP extensions can be applied either using a stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or using a stateless PCE. The PCEP procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling.
RFC 9024: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking over MPLS
Proposed Standard- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- A. Malis
- S. Bryant
- D. Fedyk
- June 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) networks are interconnected over a DetNet MPLS network.
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking data plane when Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) networks are interconnected over a DetNet MPLS network.
RFC 9037: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN)
Informational- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- A. Malis
- S. Bryant
- June 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) MPLS data plane when operating over an IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) sub-network. This document does not define new procedures or processes. Whenever this document makes statements or recommendations, they are taken from normative text in the referenced RFCs.
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) MPLS data plane when operating over an IEEE 802.1 Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) sub-network. This document does not define new procedures or processes. Whenever this document makes statements or recommendations, they are taken from normative text in the referenced RFCs.
RFC 9020: YANG Data Model for Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- S. Litkowski
- Y. Qu
- A. Lindem
- P. Sarkar
- J. Tantsura
- May 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines three YANG data models. The first is for Segment Routing (SR) configuration and operation, which is to be augmented by different Segment Routing data planes. The next is a YANG data model that defines a collection of generic types and groupings for SR. The third module defines the configuration and operational states for the Segment Routing MPLS data plane.
Abstract
This document defines three YANG data models. The first is for Segment Routing (SR) configuration and operation, which is to be augmented by different Segment Routing data planes. The next is a YANG data model that defines a collection of generic types and groupings for SR. The third module defines the configuration and operational states for the Segment Routing MPLS data plane.
RFC 9025: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS over UDP/IP
Proposed Standard- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- L. Berger
- A. Malis
- S. Bryant
- April 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is based on the operation of MPLS-over-UDP technology.
Abstract
This document specifies the MPLS Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane operation and encapsulation over an IP network. The approach is based on the operation of MPLS-over-UDP technology.
RFC 9017: Special-Purpose Label Terminology
Proposed Standard- L. Andersson
- K. Kompella
- A. Farrel
- April 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses and recommends terminology that may be used when MPLS Special-Purpose Labels (SPLs) are specified and documented.
This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator (7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).
This document updates RFCs 3032 and 7274.
Abstract
This document discusses and recommends terminology that may be used when MPLS Special-Purpose Labels (SPLs) are specified and documented.
This document applies that terminology change to the relevant IANA registry and also clarifies the use of the Entropy Label Indicator (7) when immediately preceded by the Extension Label (15).
This document updates RFCs 3032 and 7274.
RFC 9005: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- S. Litkowski
- S. Sivabalan
- J. Tantsura
- J. Hardwick
- C. Li
- March 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies with a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). The extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group (PAG).
Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate policies with a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). The extension allows a PCEP speaker to advertise to a PCEP peer that a particular LSP belongs to a particular Policy Association Group (PAG).
RFC 8957: Synonymous Flow Label Framework
Proposed Standard- S. Bryant
- M. Chen
- G. Swallow
- S. Sivabalan
- G. Mirsky
- January 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 8372 ("MPLS Flow Identification Considerations") describes the requirement for introducing flow identities within the MPLS architecture. This document describes a method of accomplishing this by using a technique called "Synonymous Flow Labels" in which labels that mimic the behavior of other labels provide the identification service. These identifiers can be used to trigger per-flow operations on the packet at the receiving label switching router.
Abstract
RFC 8372 ("MPLS Flow Identification Considerations") describes the requirement for introducing flow identities within the MPLS architecture. This document describes a method of accomplishing this by using a technique called "Synonymous Flow Labels" in which labels that mimic the behavior of other labels provide the identification service. These identifiers can be used to trigger per-flow operations on the packet at the receiving label switching router.
RFC 8964: Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Data Plane: MPLS
Proposed Standard- B. Varga
- J. Farkas
- L. Berger
- A. Malis
- S. Bryant
- J. Korhonen
- January 2021
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane when operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Network. It leverages existing pseudowire (PW) encapsulations and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) encapsulations and mechanisms. This document builds on the DetNet architecture and data plane framework.
Abstract
This document specifies the Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane when operating over an MPLS Packet Switched Network. It leverages existing pseudowire (PW) encapsulations and MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) encapsulations and mechanisms. This document builds on the DetNet architecture and data plane framework.
RFC 8960: A YANG Data Model for MPLS Base
Proposed Standard- T. Saad
- K. Raza
- R. Gandhi
- X. Liu
- V. Beeram
- December 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document contains a specification of the MPLS base YANG data model. The MPLS base YANG data model serves as a base framework for configuring and managing an MPLS switching subsystem on an MPLS-enabled router. It is expected that other MPLS YANG data models (e.g., MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) static, LDP, or RSVP-TE YANG data models) will augment the MPLS base YANG data model.
Abstract
This document contains a specification of the MPLS base YANG data model. The MPLS base YANG data model serves as a base framework for configuring and managing an MPLS switching subsystem on an MPLS-enabled router. It is expected that other MPLS YANG data models (e.g., MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) static, LDP, or RSVP-TE YANG data models) will augment the MPLS base YANG data model.
RFC 8934: PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Scheduling with Stateful PCE
Proposed Standard- H. Chen
- Y. Zhuang
- Q. Wu
- D. Ceccarelli
- October 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a set of extensions to the stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable Label Switched Path (LSP) path computation, activation, setup, and deletion based on scheduled time intervals for the LSP and the actual network resource usage in a centralized network environment, as stated in RFC 8413.
Abstract
This document defines a set of extensions to the stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable Label Switched Path (LSP) path computation, activation, setup, and deletion based on scheduled time intervals for the LSP and the actual network resource usage in a centralized network environment, as stated in RFC 8413.
RFC 8800: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity Constraint Signaling
Proposed Standard- S. Litkowski
- S. Sivabalan
- C. Barth
- M. Negi
- July 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of computing diverse (disjointed) paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a Path Computation Element (PCE) that a particular LSP belongs to a particular Disjoint Association Group; thus, the PCE knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each other.
Abstract
This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of computing diverse (disjointed) paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a Path Computation Element (PCE) that a particular LSP belongs to a particular Disjoint Association Group; thus, the PCE knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each other.
RFC 8796: RSVP-TE Summary Fast Reroute Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels
Proposed Standard- M. Taillon
- T. Saad
- R. Gandhi
- A. Deshmukh
- M. Jork
- V. Beeram
- July 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
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.
Abstract
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.
RFC 8745: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE
Proposed Standard- H. Ananthakrishnan
- S. Sivabalan
- C. Barth
- I. Minei
- M. Negi
- March 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Furthermore, it is also possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document defines the PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.
Abstract
An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Furthermore, it is also possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document defines the PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.
RFC 8741: Ability for a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to Request and Obtain Control of a Label Switched Path (LSP)
Proposed Standard- A. Raghuram
- A. Goddard
- J. Karthik
- S. Sivabalan
- M. Negi
- March 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) retains information about the placement of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). When a PCE has stateful control over LSPs, it may send indications to LSP head-ends to modify the attributes (especially the paths) of the LSPs. A Path Computation Client (PCC) that has set up LSPs under local configuration may delegate control of those LSPs to a stateful PCE.
There are use cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to obtain control of locally configured LSPs that it is aware of but have not been delegated to the PCE.
This document describes an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable a PCE to make requests for such control.
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) retains information about the placement of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). When a PCE has stateful control over LSPs, it may send indications to LSP head-ends to modify the attributes (especially the paths) of the LSPs. A Path Computation Client (PCC) that has set up LSPs under local configuration may delegate control of those LSPs to a stateful PCE.
There are use cases in which a stateful PCE may wish to obtain control of locally configured LSPs that it is aware of but have not been delegated to the PCE.
This document describes an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable a PCE to make requests for such control.
RFC 8733: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE
Proposed Standard- D. Dhody
- R. Gandhi
- U. Palle
- R. Singh
- L. Fang
- February 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using PCEP.
The auto-bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of the TE LSP bandwidth reservation based on the volume of traffic flowing through the LSP. This document describes PCEP extensions for auto-bandwidth adjustment when employing an active stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using PCEP.
The auto-bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of the TE LSP bandwidth reservation based on the volume of traffic flowing through the LSP. This document describes PCEP extensions for auto-bandwidth adjustment when employing an active stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs.
RFC 8697: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- I. Minei
- E. Crabbe
- S. Sivabalan
- H. Ananthakrishnan
- D. Dhody
- Y. Tanaka
- January 2020
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the context of a Path Computation Element (PCE). This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), and it is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and the stateless PCE.
Abstract
This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the context of a Path Computation Element (PCE). This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), and it is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and the stateless PCE.
RFC 8690: Clarification of Segment ID Sub-TLV Length for RFC 8287
Proposed Standard- N. Nainar
- C. Pignataro
- F. Iqbal
- A. Vainshtein
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 8287 defines the extensions to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with the MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes three Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack sub-TLVs. While RFC 8287 defines the format and procedure to handle those sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID sub-TLVs should be computed to be included in the Length field of the sub-TLVs. This ambiguity has resulted in interoperability issues.
This document updates RFC 8287 by clarifying the length of each of the Segment ID sub-TLVs defined in RFC 8287.
Abstract
RFC 8287 defines the extensions to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with the MPLS data plane. RFC 8287 proposes three Target Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Stack sub-TLVs. While RFC 8287 defines the format and procedure to handle those sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the length of the Segment ID sub-TLVs should be computed to be included in the Length field of the sub-TLVs. This ambiguity has resulted in interoperability issues.
This document updates RFC 8287 by clarifying the length of each of the Segment ID sub-TLVs defined in RFC 8287.
RFC 8660: Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane
Proposed Standard- A. Bashandy
- C. Filsfils
- S. Previdi
- B. Decraene
- S. Litkowski
- R. Shakir
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. In the MPLS data plane, the SR header is instantiated through a label stack. This document specifies the forwarding behavior to allow instantiating SR over the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. In the MPLS data plane, the SR header is instantiated through a label stack. This document specifies the forwarding behavior to allow instantiating SR over the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
RFC 8662: Entropy Label for Source Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels
Proposed Standard- S. Kini
- K. Kompella
- S. Sivabalan
- S. Litkowski
- R. Shakir
- J. Tantsura
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. Segment Routing can be applied to the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy labels (ELs) are used in MPLS to improve load-balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to Segment Routing MPLS.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions, called segments. Segment Routing can be applied to the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. Entropy labels (ELs) are used in MPLS to improve load-balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs are to be applied to Segment Routing MPLS.
RFC 8663: MPLS Segment Routing over IP
Proposed Standard- X. Xu
- S. Bryant
- A. Farrel
- S. Hassan
- W. Henderickx
- Z. Li
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) is a method of source routing a packet through an MPLS data plane by imposing a stack of MPLS labels on the packet to specify the path together with any packet-specific instructions to be executed on it. SR-MPLS can be leveraged to realize a source-routing mechanism across MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source-routing instruction set while making no changes to SR-MPLS specifications and interworking with SR-MPLS implementations.
This document describes how SR-MPLS-capable routers and IP-only routers can seamlessly coexist and interoperate through the use of SR-MPLS label stacks and IP encapsulation/tunneling such as MPLS-over-UDP as defined in RFC 7510.
Abstract
MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) is a method of source routing a packet through an MPLS data plane by imposing a stack of MPLS labels on the packet to specify the path together with any packet-specific instructions to be executed on it. SR-MPLS can be leveraged to realize a source-routing mechanism across MPLS, IPv4, and IPv6 data planes by using an MPLS label stack as a source-routing instruction set while making no changes to SR-MPLS specifications and interworking with SR-MPLS implementations.
This document describes how SR-MPLS-capable routers and IP-only routers can seamlessly coexist and interoperate through the use of SR-MPLS label stacks and IP encapsulation/tunneling such as MPLS-over-UDP as defined in RFC 7510.
RFC 8665: OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- P. Psenak
- S. Previdi
- C. Filsfils
- H. Gredler
- R. Shakir
- W. Henderickx
- J. Tantsura
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This document describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment Routing.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This document describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment Routing.
RFC 8666: OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- P. Psenak
- S. Previdi
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This document describes the OSPFv3 extensions required for Segment Routing with the MPLS data plane.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This document describes the OSPFv3 extensions required for Segment Routing with the MPLS data plane.
RFC 8667: IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- L. Ginsberg
- C. Filsfils
- A. Bashandy
- H. Gredler
- B. Decraene
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This document describes the IS-IS extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).
This document describes the IS-IS extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane.
RFC 8669: Segment Routing Prefix Segment Identifier Extensions for BGP
Proposed Standard- S. Previdi
- C. Filsfils
- A. Lindem
- A. Sreekantiah
- H. Gredler
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet containing a set of segment identifiers (SIDs). Each SID represents a topological or service-based instruction. Per-flow state is maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain. An "SR domain" is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID assignment.
This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for announcing information about BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SIDs) and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.
Abstract
Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through an ordered list of instructions called "segments". A segment can represent any instruction, topological or service based. The ingress node prepends an SR header to a packet containing a set of segment identifiers (SIDs). Each SID represents a topological or service-based instruction. Per-flow state is maintained only on the ingress node of the SR domain. An "SR domain" is defined as a single administrative domain for global SID assignment.
This document defines an optional, transitive BGP attribute for announcing information about BGP Prefix Segment Identifiers (BGP Prefix-SIDs) and the specification for SR-MPLS SIDs.
RFC 8679: MPLS Egress Protection Framework
Proposed Standard- Y. Shen
- M. Jeganathan
- B. Decraene
- H. Gredler
- C. Michel
- H. Chen
- December 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a fast reroute framework for protecting IP/MPLS services and MPLS transport tunnels against egress node and egress link failures. For each type of egress failure, it defines the roles of Point of Local Repair (PLR), protector, and backup egress router and the procedures of establishing a bypass tunnel from a PLR to a protector. It describes the behaviors of these routers in handling an egress failure, including local repair on the PLR and context-based forwarding on the protector. The framework can be used to develop egress protection mechanisms to reduce traffic loss before global repair reacts to an egress failure and control-plane protocols converge on the topology changes due to the egress failure.
Abstract
This document specifies a fast reroute framework for protecting IP/MPLS services and MPLS transport tunnels against egress node and egress link failures. For each type of egress failure, it defines the roles of Point of Local Repair (PLR), protector, and backup egress router and the procedures of establishing a bypass tunnel from a PLR to a protector. It describes the behaviors of these routers in handling an egress failure, including local repair on the PLR and context-based forwarding on the protector. The framework can be used to develop egress protection mechanisms to reduce traffic loss before global repair reacts to an egress failure and control-plane protocols converge on the topology changes due to the egress failure.
RFC 8687: OSPF Routing with Cross-Address Family Traffic Engineering Tunnels
Proposed Standard- A. Smirnov
- A. Retana
- M. Barnes
- November 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network, the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Path (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination IPv4 and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order to achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must be computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated in another OSPF instance. This issue is solved by advertising cross-address family (X-AF) OSPF TE information.
This document describes an update to RFC 5786 that allows for the easy identification of a router's local X-AF IP addresses.
Abstract
When using Traffic Engineering (TE) in a dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network, the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) TE Label Switched Path (LSP) infrastructure may be duplicated, even if the destination IPv4 and IPv6 addresses belong to the same remote router. In order to achieve an integrated MPLS TE LSP infrastructure, OSPF routes must be computed over MPLS TE tunnels created using information propagated in another OSPF instance. This issue is solved by advertising cross-address family (X-AF) OSPF TE information.
This document describes an update to RFC 5786 that allows for the easy identification of a router's local X-AF IP addresses.
RFC 8623: Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- U. Palle
- D. Dhody
- Y. Tanaka
- V. Beeram
- June 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- to-multipoint (P2MP) TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document provides extensions required for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting P2MP TE LSPs.
Abstract
The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- to-multipoint (P2MP) TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document provides extensions required for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting P2MP TE LSPs.
RFC 8611: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces
Proposed Standard- N. Akiya
- G. Swallow
- S. Litkowski
- B. Decraene
- J. Drake
- M. Chen
- June 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines extensions to the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute mechanisms as specified in RFC 8029. The extensions allow the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to discover and exercise specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. Additionally, a mechanism is defined to enable the determination of the capabilities supported by a Label Switching Router (LSR).
This document updates RFC 8029.
Abstract
This document defines extensions to the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute mechanisms as specified in RFC 8029. The extensions allow the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms to discover and exercise specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. Additionally, a mechanism is defined to enable the determination of the capabilities supported by a Label Switching Router (LSR).
This document updates RFC 8029.
RFC 8595: An MPLS-Based Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining
Proposed Standard- A. Farrel
- S. Bryant
- J. Drake
- June 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes how Service Function Chaining (SFC) can be achieved in an MPLS network by means of a logical representation of the Network Service Header (NSH) in an MPLS label stack. That is, the NSH is not used, but the fields of the NSH are mapped to fields in the MPLS label stack. This approach does not deprecate or replace the NSH, but it acknowledges that there may be a need for an interim deployment of SFC functionality in brownfield networks.
Abstract
This document describes how Service Function Chaining (SFC) can be achieved in an MPLS network by means of a logical representation of the Network Service Header (NSH) in an MPLS label stack. That is, the NSH is not used, but the fields of the NSH are mapped to fields in the MPLS label stack. This approach does not deprecate or replace the NSH, but it acknowledges that there may be a need for an interim deployment of SFC functionality in brownfield networks.
RFC 8596: MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)
Informational- A. Malis
- S. Bryant
- J. Halpern
- W. Henderickx
- June 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the packet original packet/ frame. This allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs over an MPLS network, and to select one of multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.
Abstract
This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the packet original packet/ frame. This allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs over an MPLS network, and to select one of multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.
RFC 8577: Signaling RSVP-TE Tunnels on a Shared MPLS Forwarding Plane
Proposed Standard- H. Sitaraman
- V. Beeram
- T. Parikh
- T. Saad
- April 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
As the scale of MPLS RSVP-TE networks has grown, the number of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) supported by individual network elements has increased. Various implementation recommendations have been proposed to manage the resulting increase in the amount of control-plane state information.
However, those changes have had no effect on the number of labels that a transit Label Switching Router (LSR) has to support in the forwarding plane. That number is governed by the number of LSPs transiting or terminated at the LSR and is directly related to the total LSP state in the control plane.
This document defines a mechanism to prevent the maximum size of the label space limit on an LSR from being a constraint to control-plane scaling on that node. It introduces the notion of preinstalled 'per-TE link labels' that can be shared by MPLS RSVP-TE LSPs that traverse these TE links. This approach significantly reduces the forwarding-plane state required to support a large number of LSPs. This couples the feature benefits of the RSVP-TE control plane with the simplicity of the Segment Routing (SR) MPLS forwarding plane.
Abstract
As the scale of MPLS RSVP-TE networks has grown, the number of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) supported by individual network elements has increased. Various implementation recommendations have been proposed to manage the resulting increase in the amount of control-plane state information.
However, those changes have had no effect on the number of labels that a transit Label Switching Router (LSR) has to support in the forwarding plane. That number is governed by the number of LSPs transiting or terminated at the LSR and is directly related to the total LSP state in the control plane.
This document defines a mechanism to prevent the maximum size of the label space limit on an LSR from being a constraint to control-plane scaling on that node. It introduces the notion of preinstalled 'per-TE link labels' that can be shared by MPLS RSVP-TE LSPs that traverse these TE links. This approach significantly reduces the forwarding-plane state required to support a large number of LSPs. This couples the feature benefits of the RSVP-TE control plane with the simplicity of the Segment Routing (SR) MPLS forwarding plane.
RFC 8537: Updates to the Fast Reroute Procedures for Co-routed Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- R. Gandhi
- H. Shah
- J. Whittaker
- February 2019
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) association signaling can be used to bind two unidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. When an associated bidirectional LSP is co-routed, the reverse LSP follows the same path as its forward LSP. This document updates the fast reroute procedures defined in RFC 4090 to support both single-sided and double-sided provisioned associated bidirectional LSPs. This document also updates the procedure for associating two reverse LSPs defined in RFC 7551 to support co-routed bidirectional LSPs. The fast reroute procedures can ensure that, for the co-routed LSPs, traffic flows on co-routed paths in the forward and reverse directions after a failure event.
Abstract
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) association signaling can be used to bind two unidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. When an associated bidirectional LSP is co-routed, the reverse LSP follows the same path as its forward LSP. This document updates the fast reroute procedures defined in RFC 4090 to support both single-sided and double-sided provisioned associated bidirectional LSPs. This document also updates the procedure for associating two reverse LSPs defined in RFC 7551 to support co-routed bidirectional LSPs. The fast reroute procedures can ensure that, for the co-routed LSPs, traffic flows on co-routed paths in the forward and reverse directions after a failure event.
RFC 8502: L2L3 VPN Multicast MIB
Proposed Standard- Z. Zhang
- H. Tsunoda
- December 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes two MIB modules that will be used by other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes two MIB modules that will be used by other MIB modules for monitoring and/or configuring Layer 2 and Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks that support multicast.
RFC 8503: BGP/MPLS Layer 3 VPN Multicast Management Information Base
Proposed Standard- H. Tsunoda
- December 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multicast communication over IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) supported by the Multiprotocol Label Switching/Border Gateway Protocol (MPLS/BGP) on a Provider Edge (PE) router.
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multicast communication over IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) supported by the Multiprotocol Label Switching/Border Gateway Protocol (MPLS/BGP) on a Provider Edge (PE) router.
RFC 8424: Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ingress Fast Reroute (FRR) Protection
Experimental- H. Chen
- R. Torvi
- August 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP). It extends the Fast Reroute (FRR) protection for transit nodes of an LSP to the ingress node of the LSP. The procedures described in this document are experimental.
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the ingress node of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP). It extends the Fast Reroute (FRR) protection for transit nodes of an LSP to the ingress node of the LSP. The procedures described in this document are experimental.
RFC 8426: Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing (SR) Label Switched Path (LSP) Coexistence
Informational- H. Sitaraman
- V. Beeram
- I. Minei
- S. Sivabalan
- July 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
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.
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.
RFC 8403: A Scalable and Topology-Aware MPLS Data-Plane Monitoring System
Informational- R. Geib
- C. Filsfils
- C. Pignataro
- N. Kumar
- July 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes features of an MPLS path monitoring system and related use cases. Segment-based routing enables a scalable and simple method to monitor data-plane liveliness of the complete set of paths belonging to a single domain. The MPLS monitoring system adds features to the traditional MPLS ping and Label Switched Path (LSP) trace, in a very complementary way. MPLS topology awareness reduces management and control-plane involvement of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) measurements while enabling new OAM features.
Abstract
This document describes features of an MPLS path monitoring system and related use cases. Segment-based routing enables a scalable and simple method to monitor data-plane liveliness of the complete set of paths belonging to a single domain. The MPLS monitoring system adds features to the traditional MPLS ping and Label Switched Path (LSP) trace, in a very complementary way. MPLS topology awareness reduces management and control-plane involvement of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) measurements while enabling new OAM features.
RFC 8413: Framework for Scheduled Use of Resources
Informational- Y. Zhuang
- Q. Wu
- H. Chen
- A. Farrel
- July 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Time-Scheduled (TS) reservation of Traffic Engineering (TE) resources can be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the efficiency of network resource usage at any moment in time, including network usage that is planned for the future. This document provides a framework that describes and discusses the architecture for supporting scheduled reservation of TE resources. This document does not describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to realize this service.
Abstract
Time-Scheduled (TS) reservation of Traffic Engineering (TE) resources can be used to provide resource booking for TE Label Switched Paths so as to better guarantee services for customers and to improve the efficiency of network resource usage at any moment in time, including network usage that is planned for the future. This document provides a framework that describes and discusses the architecture for supporting scheduled reservation of TE resources. This document does not describe specific protocols or protocol extensions needed to realize this service.
RFC 8385: Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL) Transparent Transport over MPLS
Informational- M. Umair
- S. Kingston Smiler
- D. Eastlake 3rd
- L. Yong
- June 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) sites with an intervening MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS (Virtual Private LAN Service) standards. This document addresses two problems: 1) providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that are separated by an MPLS provider network and 2) providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network.
Abstract
This document specifies methods to interconnect multiple TRILL (Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links) sites with an intervening MPLS network using existing TRILL and VPLS (Virtual Private LAN Service) standards. This document addresses two problems: 1) providing connection between more than two TRILL sites that are separated by an MPLS provider network and 2) providing a single logical virtualized TRILL network for different tenants that are separated by an MPLS provider network.
RFC 8400: Extensions to RSVP-TE for Label Switched Path (LSP) Egress Protection
Proposed Standard- H. Chen
- A. Liu
- T. Saad
- F. Xu
- L. Huang
- June 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the egress node(s) of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for locally protecting the egress node(s) of a Point-to-Point (P2P) or Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP).
RFC 8388: Usage and Applicability of BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
Informational- J. Rabadan
- S. Palislamovic
- W. Henderickx
- A. Sajassi
- J. Uttaro
- May 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario. The different EVPN procedures are explained in the example scenario along with the benefits and trade-offs of each option. This document is intended to provide a simplified guide for the deployment of EVPN networks.
Abstract
This document discusses the usage and applicability of BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPN (EVPN) in a simple and fairly common deployment scenario. The different EVPN procedures are explained in the example scenario along with the benefits and trade-offs of each option. This document is intended to provide a simplified guide for the deployment of EVPN networks.
RFC 8379: OSPF Graceful Link Shutdown
Proposed Standard- S. Hegde
- P. Sarkar
- H. Gredler
- M. Nanduri
- L. Jalil
- May 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the traffic needs to be diverted from both ends of the link. Increasing the metric to the highest value on one side of the link is not sufficient to divert the traffic flowing in the other direction.
It is useful for the routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be able to advertise a link as being in a graceful-shutdown state to indicate impending maintenance activity on the link. This information can be used by the network devices to reroute the traffic effectively.
This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate graceful-link-shutdown information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
Abstract
When a link is being prepared to be taken out of service, the traffic needs to be diverted from both ends of the link. Increasing the metric to the highest value on one side of the link is not sufficient to divert the traffic flowing in the other direction.
It is useful for the routers in an OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 routing domain to be able to advertise a link as being in a graceful-shutdown state to indicate impending maintenance activity on the link. This information can be used by the network devices to reroute the traffic effectively.
This document describes the protocol extensions to disseminate graceful-link-shutdown information in OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
RFC 8372: MPLS Flow Identification Considerations
Informational- S. Bryant
- C. Pignataro
- M. Chen
- Z. Li
- G. Mirsky
- May 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document discusses aspects to consider when developing a solution for MPLS flow identification. The key application that needs this solution is in-band performance monitoring of MPLS flows when MPLS is used to encapsulate user data packets.
Abstract
This document discusses aspects to consider when developing a solution for MPLS flow identification. The key application that needs this solution is in-band performance monitoring of MPLS flows when MPLS is used to encapsulate user data packets.
RFC 8296: Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-MPLS Networks
Proposed Standard- IJ. Wijnands
- E. Rosen
- A. Dolganow
- J. Tantsura
- S. Aldrin
- I. Meilik
- January 2018
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building protocol. When a multicast data packet enters the domain, the ingress router determines the set of egress routers to which the packet needs to be sent. The ingress router then encapsulates the packet in a BIER header. The BIER header contains a bit string in which each bit represents exactly one egress router in the domain; to forward the packet to a given set of egress routers, the bits corresponding to those routers are set in the BIER header. The details of the encapsulation depend on the type of network used to realize the multicast domain. This document specifies a BIER encapsulation that can be used in an MPLS network or, with slight differences, in a non-MPLS network.
Abstract
Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) is an architecture that provides optimal multicast forwarding through a "multicast domain", without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any per-flow state or to engage in an explicit tree-building protocol. When a multicast data packet enters the domain, the ingress router determines the set of egress routers to which the packet needs to be sent. The ingress router then encapsulates the packet in a BIER header. The BIER header contains a bit string in which each bit represents exactly one egress router in the domain; to forward the packet to a given set of egress routers, the bits corresponding to those routers are set in the BIER header. The details of the encapsulation depend on the type of network used to realize the multicast domain. This document specifies a BIER encapsulation that can be used in an MPLS network or, with slight differences, in a non-MPLS network.
RFC 8287: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes
Proposed Standard- N. Kumar
- C. Pignataro
- G. Swallow
- N. Akiya
- S. Kini
- M. Chen
- December 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to the use of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions called "segments" by prepending the packet with an SR header.
The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of SR raises additional considerations for connectivity verification and fault isolation for a Label Switched Path (LSP) within an SR architecture. This document illustrates the problem and defines extensions to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane.
Abstract
A Segment Routing (SR) architecture leverages source routing and tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to the use of a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) data plane. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions called "segments" by prepending the packet with an SR header.
The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of SR raises additional considerations for connectivity verification and fault isolation for a Label Switched Path (LSP) within an SR architecture. This document illustrates the problem and defines extensions to perform LSP Ping and Traceroute for Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane.
RFC 8306: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Proposed Standard- Q. Zhao
- D. Dhody
- R. Palleti
- D. King
- November 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.
This document describes extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs.
This document obsoletes RFC 6006.
Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.
This document describes extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs.
This document obsoletes RFC 6006.
RFC 8277: Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- October 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s) and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107.
Abstract
This document specifies a set of procedures for using BGP to advertise that a specified router has bound a specified MPLS label (or a specified sequence of MPLS labels organized as a contiguous part of a label stack) to a specified address prefix. This can be done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s) and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). This document obsoletes RFC 3107.
RFC 8232: Optimizations of Label Switched Path State Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE
Proposed Standard- E. Crabbe
- I. Minei
- J. Medved
- R. Varga
- X. Zhang
- D. Dhody
- September 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a State Synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, the PCE and Path Computation Clients (PCCs), and cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for State Synchronization is part of the stateful PCE specification. This document presents motivations for optimizations to the base State Synchronization procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions.
Abstract
A stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) has access to not only the information disseminated by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its computation. The additional Label Switched Path (LSP) state information allows the PCE to compute constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their interactions. This requires a State Synchronization mechanism between the PCE and the network, the PCE and Path Computation Clients (PCCs), and cooperating PCEs. The basic mechanism for State Synchronization is part of the stateful PCE specification. This document presents motivations for optimizations to the base State Synchronization procedure and specifies the required Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions.
RFC 8233: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- D. Dhody
- Q. Wu
- V. Manral
- Z. Ali
- K. Kumaki
- September 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics and constraints. These metrics are associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. The link bandwidth utilization (the total bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another important factor to consider during path computation.
IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions describe mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization as constraints for end-to-end path computation.
Abstract
In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics and constraints. These metrics are associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. The link bandwidth utilization (the total bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another important factor to consider during path computation.
IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions describe mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization as constraints for end-to-end path computation.
RFC 8169: Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks
Proposed Standard- G. Mirsky
- S. Ruffini
- E. Gray
- J. Drake
- S. Bryant
- A. Vainshtein
- May 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) for Residence Time Measurement (RTM) and describes how it can be used by time synchronization protocols within an MPLS domain.
Residence time is the variable part of the propagation delay of timing and synchronization messages; knowing this delay for each message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be taken into account when applying the value included in a Precision Time Protocol event message.
Abstract
This document specifies a new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) for Residence Time Measurement (RTM) and describes how it can be used by time synchronization protocols within an MPLS domain.
Residence time is the variable part of the propagation delay of timing and synchronization messages; knowing this delay for each message allows for a more accurate determination of the delay to be taken into account when applying the value included in a Precision Time Protocol event message.
RFC 8149: RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- T. Saad
- R. Gandhi
- Z. Ali
- R. Venator
- Y. Kamite
- April 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The reoptimization of a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) may be triggered based on the need to reoptimize an individual source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSP or a set of S2L sub-LSPs, both using the Sub-Group-based reoptimization method, or the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree using the Make-Before-Break (MBB) method. This document discusses the application of the existing mechanisms for path reoptimization of loosely routed Point-to-Point (P2P) TE LSPs to the P2MP-TE LSPs, identifies issues in doing so, and defines procedures to address them. When reoptimizing a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in a tree using the Sub-Group-based reoptimization method, the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list may need to be semantically fragmented. This document defines the notion of a fragment identifier to help recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct the fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list.
Abstract
The reoptimization of a Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) may be triggered based on the need to reoptimize an individual source-to-leaf (S2L) sub-LSP or a set of S2L sub-LSPs, both using the Sub-Group-based reoptimization method, or the entire P2MP-TE LSP tree using the Make-Before-Break (MBB) method. This document discusses the application of the existing mechanisms for path reoptimization of loosely routed Point-to-Point (P2P) TE LSPs to the P2MP-TE LSPs, identifies issues in doing so, and defines procedures to address them. When reoptimizing a large number of S2L sub-LSPs in a tree using the Sub-Group-based reoptimization method, the S2L sub-LSP descriptor list may need to be semantically fragmented. This document defines the notion of a fragment identifier to help recipient nodes unambiguously reconstruct the fragmented S2L sub-LSP descriptor list.
RFC 8029: Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- G. Swallow
- C. Pignataro
- N. Kumar
- S. Aldrin
- M. Chen
- March 2017
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism to detect data-plane failures in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It defines a probe message called an "MPLS echo request" and a response message called an "MPLS echo reply" for returning the result of the probe. The MPLS echo request is intended to contain sufficient information to check correct operation of the data plane and to verify the data plane against the control plane, thereby localizing faults.
This document obsoletes RFCs 4379, 6424, 6829, and 7537, and updates RFC 1122.
Abstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism to detect data-plane failures in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It defines a probe message called an "MPLS echo request" and a response message called an "MPLS echo reply" for returning the result of the probe. The MPLS echo request is intended to contain sufficient information to check correct operation of the data plane and to verify the data plane against the control plane, thereby localizing faults.
This document obsoletes RFCs 4379, 6424, 6829, and 7537, and updates RFC 1122.
RFC 8100: Diffserv-Interconnection Classes and Practice
Informational- R. Geib
- D. Black
- March 2017
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
This document defines a limited common set of Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviors (PHBs) and Diffserv Codepoints (DSCPs) to be applied at (inter)connections of two separately administered and operated networks, and it explains how this approach can simplify network configuration and operation. Many network providers operate Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) using Treatment Aggregates for traffic marked with different Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviors and use MPLS for interconnection with other networks. This document offers a simple interconnection approach that may simplify operation of Diffserv for network interconnection among providers that use MPLS and apply the Short Pipe Model. While motivated by the requirements of MPLS network operators that use Short Pipe Model tunnels, this document is applicable to other networks, both MPLS and non-MPLS.
Abstract
This document defines a limited common set of Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviors (PHBs) and Diffserv Codepoints (DSCPs) to be applied at (inter)connections of two separately administered and operated networks, and it explains how this approach can simplify network configuration and operation. Many network providers operate Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) using Treatment Aggregates for traffic marked with different Diffserv Per-Hop Behaviors and use MPLS for interconnection with other networks. This document offers a simple interconnection approach that may simplify operation of Diffserv for network interconnection among providers that use MPLS and apply the Short Pipe Model. While motivated by the requirements of MPLS network operators that use Short Pipe Model tunnels, this document is applicable to other networks, both MPLS and non-MPLS.
RFC 7876: UDP Return Path for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks
Proposed Standard- S. Bryant
- S. Sivabalan
- S. Soni
- July 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 6374 defines a protocol for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS networks (MPLS-PLDM). This document specifies the procedures to be used when sending and processing out-of-band MPLS performance management Responses over an UDP/IP return path.
Abstract
RFC 6374 defines a protocol for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS networks (MPLS-PLDM). This document specifies the procedures to be used when sending and processing out-of-band MPLS performance management Responses over an UDP/IP return path.
RFC 7881: Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) for IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS
Proposed Standard- C. Pignataro
- D. Ward
- N. Akiya
- July 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines procedures for using Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) in IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS environments.
Abstract
This document defines procedures for using Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (S-BFD) in IPv4, IPv6, and MPLS environments.
RFC 7900: Extranet Multicast in BGP/IP MPLS VPNs
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- R. Aggarwal
- Y. Cai
- T. Morin
- June 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Previous RFCs specify the procedures necessary to allow IP multicast traffic to travel from one site to another within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network). However, it is sometimes desirable to allow multicast traffic whose source is in one VPN to be received by systems that are in another VPN. This is known as a "Multicast VPN (MVPN) extranet". This document updates RFCs 6513, 6514, and 6625 by specifying the procedures that are necessary in order to provide extranet MVPN service.
Abstract
Previous RFCs specify the procedures necessary to allow IP multicast traffic to travel from one site to another within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network). However, it is sometimes desirable to allow multicast traffic whose source is in one VPN to be received by systems that are in another VPN. This is known as a "Multicast VPN (MVPN) extranet". This document updates RFCs 6513, 6514, and 6625 by specifying the procedures that are necessary in order to provide extranet MVPN service.
RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions
Informational- A. Atlas
- J. Drake
- S. Giacalone
- S. Previdi
- May 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In certain networks, it is critical to consider network performance criteria when selecting the path for an explicitly routed RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP). Such performance criteria can include latency, jitter, and loss or other indications such as the conformance to link performance objectives and non-RSVP TE traffic load. This specification describes how a path computation function may use network performance data, such as is advertised via the OSPF and IS-IS TE metric extensions (defined outside the scope of this document) to perform such path selections.
Abstract
In certain networks, it is critical to consider network performance criteria when selecting the path for an explicitly routed RSVP-TE Label Switched Path (LSP). Such performance criteria can include latency, jitter, and loss or other indications such as the conformance to link performance objectives and non-RSVP TE traffic load. This specification describes how a path computation function may use network performance data, such as is advertised via the OSPF and IS-IS TE metric extensions (defined outside the scope of this document) to perform such path selections.
RFC 7814: Virtual Subnet: A BGP/MPLS IP VPN-Based Subnet Extension Solution
Informational- X. Xu
- C. Jacquenet
- R. Raszuk
- T. Boyes
- B. Fee
- March 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN-based subnet extension solution referred to as "Virtual Subnet", which can be used for building Layer 3 network virtualization overlays within and/or between data centers.
Abstract
This document describes a BGP/MPLS IP VPN-based subnet extension solution referred to as "Virtual Subnet", which can be used for building Layer 3 network virtualization overlays within and/or between data centers.
RFC 7726: Clarifying Procedures for Establishing BFD Sessions for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- V. Govindan
- K. Rajaraman
- G. Mirsky
- N. Akiya
- S. Aldrin
- January 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining, and removing multiple, concurrent BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) sessions for a given <MPLS LSP, FEC> as described in RFC 5884.
Abstract
This document clarifies the procedures for establishing, maintaining, and removing multiple, concurrent BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) sessions for a given <MPLS LSP, FEC> as described in RFC 5884.
RFC 7746: Label Switched Path (LSP) Self-Ping
Proposed Standard- R. Bonica
- I. Minei
- M. Conn
- D. Pacella
- L. Tomotaki
- January 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress Label Switching Router (LSRs) can receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the ingress LSR can forward traffic through a Label Switched Path (LSP) as soon as it receives a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes, traffic can be lost.
This document describes LSP Self-ping. When an ingress LSR receives an RESV message, it can invoke LSP Self-ping procedures to ensure that forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes.
LSP Self-ping is a new protocol. It is not an extension of LSP Ping. Although LSP Ping and LSP Self-ping are named similarly, each is designed for a unique purpose. Each protocol listens on its own UDP port and executes its own procedures.
LSP Self-ping is an extremely lightweight mechanism. It does not consume control-plane resources on transit or egress LSRs.
Abstract
When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress Label Switching Router (LSRs) can receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the ingress LSR can forward traffic through a Label Switched Path (LSP) as soon as it receives a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes, traffic can be lost.
This document describes LSP Self-ping. When an ingress LSR receives an RESV message, it can invoke LSP Self-ping procedures to ensure that forwarding state has been installed on all downstream nodes.
LSP Self-ping is a new protocol. It is not an extension of LSP Ping. Although LSP Ping and LSP Self-ping are named similarly, each is designed for a unique purpose. Each protocol listens on its own UDP port and executes its own procedures.
LSP Self-ping is an extremely lightweight mechanism. It does not consume control-plane resources on transit or egress LSRs.
RFC 7737: Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
Proposed Standard- N. Akiya
- G. Swallow
- C. Pignataro
- L. Andersson
- M. Chen
- January 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the procedures for the "Reply via Specified Path" Reply Mode. The value of this Reply Mode is 5. The update creates a simple way to indicate that the reverse LSP should be used as the return path. This document also adds an optional TLV that can carry an ordered list of Reply Mode values.
Abstract
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the procedures for the "Reply via Specified Path" Reply Mode. The value of this Reply Mode is 5. The update creates a simple way to indicate that the reverse LSP should be used as the return path. This document also adds an optional TLV that can carry an ordered list of Reply Mode values.
RFC 7743: Relayed Echo Reply Mechanism for Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
Proposed Standard- J. Luo
- L. Jin
- T. Nadeau
- G. Swallow
- January 2016
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In some inter-AS (Autonomous System) and inter-area deployment scenarios for RFC 4379 ("Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute"), a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded, resulting in false negatives or a complete failure of operation of the LSP Ping and Traceroute. This document describes extensions to the LSP Ping mechanism to enable the replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator. This document updates RFC 4379.
Abstract
In some inter-AS (Autonomous System) and inter-area deployment scenarios for RFC 4379 ("Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute"), a replying Label Switching Router (LSR) may not have the available route to an initiator, and the Echo Reply message sent to the initiator would be discarded, resulting in false negatives or a complete failure of operation of the LSP Ping and Traceroute. This document describes extensions to the LSP Ping mechanism to enable the replying LSR to have the capability to relay the Echo Response by a set of routable intermediate nodes to the initiator. This document updates RFC 4379.
RFC 7625: Architecture of an IP/MPLS Network with Hardened Pipes
Informational- J. T. Hao
- P. Maheshwari
- R. Huang
- L. Andersson
- M. Chen
- August 2015
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes an IP/MPLS network that has an infrastructure that can be separated into two or more strata. For the implementation described in this document, the infrastructure has been separated into two strata: one for the "Hard Pipes", called the "Hard Pipe Stratum", and one for the normal IP/MPLS traffic, called the "Normal IP/MPLS Stratum".
This document introduces the concept of a Hard Pipe -- an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) or a pseudowire (PW) with a bandwidth that is guaranteed and can neither be exceeded nor infringed upon.
The Hard Pipe stratum does not use statistical multiplexing; for the LSPs and PWs set up within this stratum, the bandwidth is guaranteed end to end.
The document does not specify any new protocol or procedures. It does explain how the MPLS standards implementation has been deployed and operated to meet the requirements from operators that offer traditional Virtual Leased Line (VLL) services.
Abstract
This document describes an IP/MPLS network that has an infrastructure that can be separated into two or more strata. For the implementation described in this document, the infrastructure has been separated into two strata: one for the "Hard Pipes", called the "Hard Pipe Stratum", and one for the normal IP/MPLS traffic, called the "Normal IP/MPLS Stratum".
This document introduces the concept of a Hard Pipe -- an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) or a pseudowire (PW) with a bandwidth that is guaranteed and can neither be exceeded nor infringed upon.
The Hard Pipe stratum does not use statistical multiplexing; for the LSPs and PWs set up within this stratum, the bandwidth is guaranteed end to end.
The document does not specify any new protocol or procedures. It does explain how the MPLS standards implementation has been deployed and operated to meet the requirements from operators that offer traditional Virtual Leased Line (VLL) services.
RFC 7555: Proxy MPLS Echo Request
Proposed Standard- G. Swallow
- V. Lim
- S. Aldrin
- June 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a means of remotely initiating Multiprotocol Label Switched Protocol (MPLS) Pings on Label Switched Paths. An MPLS Proxy Ping Request is sent to any Label Switching Router along a Label Switched Path. The primary motivations for this facility are first to limit the number of messages and related processing when using LSP Ping in large Point-to-Multipoint LSPs, and second to enable tracing from leaf to leaf (or root).
Abstract
This document defines a means of remotely initiating Multiprotocol Label Switched Protocol (MPLS) Pings on Label Switched Paths. An MPLS Proxy Ping Request is sent to any Label Switching Router along a Label Switched Path. The primary motivations for this facility are first to limit the number of messages and related processing when using LSP Ping in large Point-to-Multipoint LSPs, and second to enable tracing from leaf to leaf (or root).
RFC 7524: Inter-Area Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Segmented Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- R. Aggarwal
- T. Morin
- I. Grosclaude
- N. Leymann
- S. Saad
- May 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes procedures for building inter-area point-to-multipoint (P2MP) segmented service label switched paths (LSPs) by partitioning such LSPs into intra-area segments and using BGP as the inter-area routing and Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). Within each IGP area, the intra-area segments are either carried over intra-area P2MP LSPs, using P2MP LSP hierarchy, or instantiated using ingress replication. The intra-area P2MP LSPs may be signaled using P2MP RSVP-TE or P2MP multipoint LDP (mLDP). If ingress replication is used within an IGP area, then (multipoint-to-point) LDP LSPs or (point-to-point) RSVP-TE LSPs may be used in the IGP area. The applications/services that use such inter-area service LSPs may be BGP Multicast VPN, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) multicast, or global table multicast over MPLS.
Abstract
This document describes procedures for building inter-area point-to-multipoint (P2MP) segmented service label switched paths (LSPs) by partitioning such LSPs into intra-area segments and using BGP as the inter-area routing and Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). Within each IGP area, the intra-area segments are either carried over intra-area P2MP LSPs, using P2MP LSP hierarchy, or instantiated using ingress replication. The intra-area P2MP LSPs may be signaled using P2MP RSVP-TE or P2MP multipoint LDP (mLDP). If ingress replication is used within an IGP area, then (multipoint-to-point) LDP LSPs or (point-to-point) RSVP-TE LSPs may be used in the IGP area. The applications/services that use such inter-area service LSPs may be BGP Multicast VPN, Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) multicast, or global table multicast over MPLS.
RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- F. Zhang
- R. Jing
- R. Gandhi
- May 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) extensions to bind two point-to-point unidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. The association is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION and in Extended ASSOCIATION Objects. One of these types enables independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs on both sides, while the other enables single-sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object is also defined to enable a single endpoint to trigger creation of the reverse LSP and to specify parameters of the reverse LSP in the single-sided provisioning case.
Abstract
This document describes Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) extensions to bind two point-to-point unidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) into an associated bidirectional LSP. The association is achieved by defining new Association Types for use in ASSOCIATION and in Extended ASSOCIATION Objects. One of these types enables independent provisioning of the associated bidirectional LSPs on both sides, while the other enables single-sided provisioning. The REVERSE_LSP Object is also defined to enable a single endpoint to trigger creation of the reverse LSP and to specify parameters of the reverse LSP in the single-sided provisioning case.
RFC 7537: IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points
Proposed Standard- B. Decraene
- N. Akiya
- C. Pignataro
- L. Andersson
- S. Aldrin
- May 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFCs 4379 and 6424 created name spaces for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. However, those RFCs did not create the corresponding IANA registries for Downstream Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and Interface and Label Stack Address Types.
There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these name spaces. This document updates RFCs 4379 and 6424 in that it creates IANA registries for that purpose.
Obsoleted by RFC 8029
Abstract
RFCs 4379 and 6424 created name spaces for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping. However, those RFCs did not create the corresponding IANA registries for Downstream Mapping object Flags (DS Flags), Multipath Types, Pad TLVs, and Interface and Label Stack Address Types.
There is now a need to make further code point allocations from these name spaces. This document updates RFCs 4379 and 6424 in that it creates IANA registries for that purpose.
RFC 7506: IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Historic- K. Raza
- N. Akiya
- C. Pignataro
- April 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 4379 defines the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute mechanism in which the Router Alert Option (RAO) MUST be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Request messages and may conditionally be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Reply messages depending on the Reply Mode used. While a generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the IPv4 RAO, there is no generic RAO value defined for IPv6 that can be used. This document allocates a new, generic IPv6 RAO value that can be used by MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools, including the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages for MPLS in IPv6 environments. Consequently, it updates RFC 4379.
The initial motivation to request an IPv6 RAO value for MPLS OAM comes from the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute. However, this value is applicable to all MPLS OAM and not limited to MPLS LSP Ping/ Traceroute.
Abstract
RFC 4379 defines the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute mechanism in which the Router Alert Option (RAO) MUST be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Request messages and may conditionally be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Reply messages depending on the Reply Mode used. While a generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the IPv4 RAO, there is no generic RAO value defined for IPv6 that can be used. This document allocates a new, generic IPv6 RAO value that can be used by MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools, including the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages for MPLS in IPv6 environments. Consequently, it updates RFC 4379.
The initial motivation to request an IPv6 RAO value for MPLS OAM comes from the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute. However, this value is applicable to all MPLS OAM and not limited to MPLS LSP Ping/ Traceroute.
RFC 7510: Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
Proposed Standard- X. Xu
- N. Sheth
- L. Yong
- R. Callon
- D. Black
- April 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, called MPLS-in-UDP for situations where UDP (User Datagram Protocol) encapsulation is preferred to direct use of MPLS, e.g., to enable UDP-based ECMP (Equal-Cost Multipath) or link aggregation. The MPLS- in-UDP encapsulation technology must only be deployed within a single network (with a single network operator) or networks of an adjacent set of cooperating network operators where traffic is managed to avoid congestion, rather than over the Internet where congestion control is required. Usage restrictions apply to MPLS-in-UDP usage for traffic that is not congestion controlled and to UDP zero checksum usage with IPv6.
Abstract
This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, called MPLS-in-UDP for situations where UDP (User Datagram Protocol) encapsulation is preferred to direct use of MPLS, e.g., to enable UDP-based ECMP (Equal-Cost Multipath) or link aggregation. The MPLS- in-UDP encapsulation technology must only be deployed within a single network (with a single network operator) or networks of an adjacent set of cooperating network operators where traffic is managed to avoid congestion, rather than over the Internet where congestion control is required. Usage restrictions apply to MPLS-in-UDP usage for traffic that is not congestion controlled and to UDP zero checksum usage with IPv6.
RFC 7432: BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN
Proposed Standard- A. Sajassi
- R. Aggarwal
- N. Bitar
- A. Isaac
- J. Uttaro
- J. Drake
- W. Henderickx
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes procedures for BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs (EVPN). The procedures described here meet the requirements specified in RFC 7209 -- "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)".
Abstract
This document describes procedures for BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs (EVPN). The procedures described here meet the requirements specified in RFC 7209 -- "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)".
RFC 7447: Deprecation of BGP Entropy Label Capability Attribute
Proposed Standard- J. Scudder
- K. Kompella
- February 2015
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute is defined in RFC 6790. Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that routers incapable of processing Entropy Labels must remove the attribute, fulfillment of this requirement cannot be guaranteed in practice. This specification deprecates the attribute. A forthcoming document will propose a replacement.
Abstract
The BGP Entropy Label Capability attribute is defined in RFC 6790. Regrettably, it has a bug: although RFC 6790 mandates that routers incapable of processing Entropy Labels must remove the attribute, fulfillment of this requirement cannot be guaranteed in practice. This specification deprecates the attribute. A forthcoming document will propose a replacement.
RFC 7394: Definition of Time to Live TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms
Proposed Standard- S. Boutros
- S. Sivabalan
- G. Swallow
- S. Saxena
- V. Manral
- S. Aldrin
- November 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) and/or bidirectional co-routed Label Switched Path (LSP) from any node on the path of the MS-PW and/or bidirectional co-routed LSP. This document defines a TLV to address this shortcoming.
Abstract
LSP-Ping is a widely deployed Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanism in MPLS networks. However, in the present form, this mechanism is inadequate to verify connectivity of a segment of a Multi-Segment Pseudowire (MS-PW) and/or bidirectional co-routed Label Switched Path (LSP) from any node on the path of the MS-PW and/or bidirectional co-routed LSP. This document defines a TLV to address this shortcoming.
RFC 7387: A Framework for Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) Service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Network
Informational- R. Key
- L. Yong
- S. Delord
- F. Jounay
- L. Jin
- October 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes an Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) solution framework for supporting the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) E-Tree service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. The objective is to provide a simple and effective approach to emulate E-Tree services in addition to Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services on an existing MPLS network.
Abstract
This document describes an Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) solution framework for supporting the Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) E-Tree service over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) network. The objective is to provide a simple and effective approach to emulate E-Tree services in addition to Ethernet LAN (E-LAN) services on an existing MPLS network.
RFC 7334: PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Experimental- Q. Zhao
- D. Dhody
- D. King
- Z. Ali
- R. Casellas
- August 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The ability to compute paths for constrained point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement for the deployment of P2MP services in MPLS- and GMPLS-controlled networks. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been recognized as an appropriate technology for the determination of inter-domain paths of P2MP TE LSPs.
This document describes an experiment to provide procedures and extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the computation of inter-domain paths for P2MP TE LSPs.
Abstract
The ability to compute paths for constrained point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement for the deployment of P2MP services in MPLS- and GMPLS-controlled networks. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been recognized as an appropriate technology for the determination of inter-domain paths of P2MP TE LSPs.
This document describes an experiment to provide procedures and extensions to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the computation of inter-domain paths for P2MP TE LSPs.
RFC 7308: Extended Administrative Groups in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE)
Proposed Standard- E. Osborne
- July 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) advertises 32 administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link colors") using the Administrative Group sub-TLV. This is defined for OSPFv2 (RFC 3630), OSPFv3 (RFC 5329) and IS-IS (RFC 5305).
This document adds a sub-TLV to the IGP TE extensions, "Extended Administrative Group". This sub-TLV provides for additional administrative groups (link colors) beyond the current limit of 32.
Abstract
MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) advertises 32 administrative groups (commonly referred to as "colors" or "link colors") using the Administrative Group sub-TLV. This is defined for OSPFv2 (RFC 3630), OSPFv3 (RFC 5329) and IS-IS (RFC 5305).
This document adds a sub-TLV to the IGP TE extensions, "Extended Administrative Group". This sub-TLV provides for additional administrative groups (link colors) beyond the current limit of 32.
RFC 7297: IP Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)
Informational- M. Boucadair
- C. Jacquenet
- N. Wang
- July 2014
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes the Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP) and proposes a CPP template to capture IP/MPLS connectivity requirements to be met within a service delivery context (e.g., Voice over IP or IP TV). The CPP defines the set of IP transfer parameters to be supported by the underlying transport network together with a reachability scope and bandwidth/capacity needs. Appropriate performance metrics, such as one-way delay or one-way delay variation, are used to characterize an IP transfer service. Both global and restricted reachability scopes can be captured in the CPP.
Such a generic CPP template is meant to (1) facilitate the automation of the service negotiation and activation procedures, thus accelerating service provisioning, (2) set (traffic) objectives of Traffic Engineering functions and service management functions, and (3) improve service and network management systems with 'decision- making' capabilities based upon negotiated/offered CPPs.
Abstract
This document describes the Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP) and proposes a CPP template to capture IP/MPLS connectivity requirements to be met within a service delivery context (e.g., Voice over IP or IP TV). The CPP defines the set of IP transfer parameters to be supported by the underlying transport network together with a reachability scope and bandwidth/capacity needs. Appropriate performance metrics, such as one-way delay or one-way delay variation, are used to characterize an IP transfer service. Both global and restricted reachability scopes can be captured in the CPP.
Such a generic CPP template is meant to (1) facilitate the automation of the service negotiation and activation procedures, thus accelerating service provisioning, (2) set (traffic) objectives of Traffic Engineering functions and service management functions, and (3) improve service and network management systems with 'decision- making' capabilities based upon negotiated/offered CPPs.
RFC 7289: Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
Informational- V. Kuarsingh
- J. Cianfarani
- June 2014
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address Translation (NAT) layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier-Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large-Scale NAT). The CGN infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber home network will likely also maintain a subscriber-side NAT function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may wish to deploy IPv6 to strategically overcome IPv4 exhaustion, near- term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This document provides a practical integration model that allows the CGN platform to be integrated into the network, meeting the connectivity needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, which allow for virtual routing separation, helping ease the CGN's impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the merits of CGN.
Abstract
This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address Translation (NAT) layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier-Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large-Scale NAT). The CGN infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber home network will likely also maintain a subscriber-side NAT function. Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver compelling some operators to implement CGN. Although operators may wish to deploy IPv6 to strategically overcome IPv4 exhaustion, near- term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone. This document provides a practical integration model that allows the CGN platform to be integrated into the network, meeting the connectivity needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN brings. The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP VPNs, which allow for virtual routing separation, helping ease the CGN's impact on the network. This document does not intend to defend the merits of CGN.
RFC 7212: MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Advertisement Protocol
Proposed Standard- D. Frost
- S. Bryant
- M. Bocci
- June 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) provides an auxiliary logical data channel associated with a Label Switched Path (LSP), a pseudowire, or a section (link) over which a variety of protocols may flow. These protocols are commonly used to provide Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms associated with the primary data channel. This document specifies simple procedures by which an endpoint of an LSP, pseudowire, or section may inform the other endpoints of its capabilities and configuration parameters, or other application-specific information. This information may then be used by the receiver to validate or adjust its local configuration, and by the network operator for diagnostic purposes.
Abstract
The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) provides an auxiliary logical data channel associated with a Label Switched Path (LSP), a pseudowire, or a section (link) over which a variety of protocols may flow. These protocols are commonly used to provide Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms associated with the primary data channel. This document specifies simple procedures by which an endpoint of an LSP, pseudowire, or section may inform the other endpoints of its capabilities and configuration parameters, or other application-specific information. This information may then be used by the receiver to validate or adjust its local configuration, and by the network operator for diagnostic purposes.
RFC 7274: Allocating and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- L. Andersson
- A. Farrel
- June 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Some MPLS labels have been allocated for specific purposes. A block of labels (0-15) has been set aside to this end; these labels are commonly called "reserved labels". They will be called "special-purpose labels" in this document.
As there are only 16 of these special-purpose labels, caution is needed in the allocation of new special-purpose labels; yet, at the same time, forward progress should be allowed when one is called for.
This memo defines new procedures for the allocation and retirement of special-purpose labels, as well as a method to extend the special-purpose label space and a description of how to handle extended special-purpose labels in the data plane. Finally, this memo renames the IANA registry for special-purpose labels to "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" and creates a new registry called the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry.
This document updates a number of previous RFCs that use the term "reserved label". Specifically, this document updates RFCs 3032, 3038, 3209, 3811, 4182, 4928, 5331, 5586, 5921, 5960, 6391, 6478, and 6790.
Abstract
Some MPLS labels have been allocated for specific purposes. A block of labels (0-15) has been set aside to this end; these labels are commonly called "reserved labels". They will be called "special-purpose labels" in this document.
As there are only 16 of these special-purpose labels, caution is needed in the allocation of new special-purpose labels; yet, at the same time, forward progress should be allowed when one is called for.
This memo defines new procedures for the allocation and retirement of special-purpose labels, as well as a method to extend the special-purpose label space and a description of how to handle extended special-purpose labels in the data plane. Finally, this memo renames the IANA registry for special-purpose labels to "Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" and creates a new registry called the "Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry.
This document updates a number of previous RFCs that use the term "reserved label". Specifically, this document updates RFCs 3032, 3038, 3209, 3811, 4182, 4928, 5331, 5586, 5921, 5960, 6391, 6478, and 6790.
RFC 7214: Moving Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) IANA Registries to a New Registry
Proposed Standard- L. Andersson
- C. Pignataro
- May 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh. However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries. This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" heading. This document updates RFC 5586.
This document also updates RFCs 6374, 6378, 6427, and 6428.
Abstract
RFC 5586 generalized the applicability of the pseudowire Associated Channel Header (PW-ACH) into the Generic Associated Channel G-ACh. However, registries and allocations of G-ACh parameters had been distributed throughout different, sometimes unrelated, registries. This document coalesces these into a new "Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)" heading. This document updates RFC 5586.
This document also updates RFCs 6374, 6378, 6427, and 6428.
RFC 7226: Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS Networks
Informational- C. Villamizar
- D. McDysan
- S. Ning
- A. Malis
- L. Yong
- May 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides a set of requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS networks.
Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to existing multipath techniques.
Abstract
This document provides a set of requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS networks.
Advanced Multipath is a formalization of multipath techniques currently in use in IP and MPLS networks and a set of extensions to existing multipath techniques.
RFC 7152: Requirements for Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet-Tree (E-Tree) Support in Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
Informational- R. Key
- S. DeLord
- F. Jounay
- L. Huang
- Z. Liu
- M. Paul
- March 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides functional requirements for the support of Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) in multipoint Layer 2 Virtual Private Network solutions (referred to as simply "L2VPN"). It is intended that potential solutions will use these requirements as guidelines.
Abstract
This document provides functional requirements for the support of Metro Ethernet Forum (MEF) Ethernet Tree (E-Tree) in multipoint Layer 2 Virtual Private Network solutions (referred to as simply "L2VPN"). It is intended that potential solutions will use these requirements as guidelines.
RFC 7110: Return Path Specified Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
Proposed Standard- M. Chen
- W. Cao
- S. Ning
- F. Jounay
- S. Delord
- January 2014
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines extensions to the data-plane failure-detection protocol for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) known as "LSP ping". These extensions allow a selection of the LSP to be used for the echo reply return path. Enforcing a specific return path can be used to verify bidirectional connectivity and also increase LSP ping robustness.
Abstract
This document defines extensions to the data-plane failure-detection protocol for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) known as "LSP ping". These extensions allow a selection of the LSP to be used for the echo reply return path. Enforcing a specific return path can be used to verify bidirectional connectivity and also increase LSP ping robustness.
RFC 7054: Addressing Requirements and Design Considerations for Per-Interface Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs)
Informational- A. Farrel
- H. Endo
- R. Winter
- Y. Koike
- M. Paul
- November 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how the Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within network nodes at incoming and outgoing interfaces.
This document elaborates on important considerations for internal MIP addressing. More precisely, it describes important restrictions for any mechanism that specifies a way of forming OAM messages so that they can be targeted at MIPs on either incoming or outgoing interfaces and forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine. Furthermore, the document includes considerations for node implementations where there is no distinction between the incoming and outgoing MIP.
Abstract
The framework for Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) within the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) describes how the Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIPs) may be situated within network nodes at incoming and outgoing interfaces.
This document elaborates on important considerations for internal MIP addressing. More precisely, it describes important restrictions for any mechanism that specifies a way of forming OAM messages so that they can be targeted at MIPs on either incoming or outgoing interfaces and forwarded correctly through the forwarding engine. Furthermore, the document includes considerations for node implementations where there is no distinction between the incoming and outgoing MIP.
RFC 7024: Virtual Hub-and-Spoke in BGP/MPLS VPNs
Proposed Standard- H. Jeng
- J. Uttaro
- L. Jalil
- B. Decraene
- Y. Rekhter
- R. Aggarwal
- October 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
With BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), providing any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given VPN would require each Provider Edge (PE) router connected to one or more of these sites to hold all the routes of that VPN. The approach described in this document allows the VPN service provider to reduce the number of PE routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes.
Furthermore, when PE routers use ingress replication to carry the multicast traffic of VPN customers, the approach described in this document may, under certain circumstances, reduce bandwidth inefficiency associated with ingress replication and redistribute the replication load among PE routers.
Abstract
With BGP/MPLS Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), providing any-to-any connectivity among sites of a given VPN would require each Provider Edge (PE) router connected to one or more of these sites to hold all the routes of that VPN. The approach described in this document allows the VPN service provider to reduce the number of PE routers that have to maintain all these routes by requiring only a subset of these routers to maintain all these routes.
Furthermore, when PE routers use ingress replication to carry the multicast traffic of VPN customers, the approach described in this document may, under certain circumstances, reduce bandwidth inefficiency associated with ingress replication and redistribute the replication load among PE routers.
RFC 6981: A Framework for IP and MPLS Fast Reroute Using Not-Via Addresses
Informational- S. Bryant
- S. Previdi
- M. Shand
- August 2013
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document presents an illustrative framework for providing fast reroute in an IP or MPLS network through encapsulation and forwarding to "not-via" addresses. The general approach described here uses a single level of encapsulation and could be used to protect unicast, multicast, and LDP traffic against link, router, and shared risk group failure, regardless of network topology and metrics.
The mechanisms presented in this document are purely illustrative of the general approach and do not constitute a protocol specification. The document represents a snapshot of the work of the Routing Area Working Group at the time of publication and is published as a document of record. Further work is needed before implementation or deployment.
Abstract
This document presents an illustrative framework for providing fast reroute in an IP or MPLS network through encapsulation and forwarding to "not-via" addresses. The general approach described here uses a single level of encapsulation and could be used to protect unicast, multicast, and LDP traffic against link, router, and shared risk group failure, regardless of network topology and metrics.
The mechanisms presented in this document are purely illustrative of the general approach and do not constitute a protocol specification. The document represents a snapshot of the work of the Routing Area Working Group at the time of publication and is published as a document of record. Further work is needed before implementation or deployment.
RFC 6894: Methodology for Benchmarking MPLS Traffic Engineered (MPLS-TE) Fast Reroute Protection
Informational- R. Papneja
- S. Vapiwala
- J. Karthik
- S. Poretsky
- S. Rao
- JL. Le Roux
- March 2013
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) protection mechanisms for link and node protection. This document provides test methodologies and testbed setup for measuring failover times of Fast Reroute techniques while considering factors (such as underlying links) that might impact recovery times for real-time applications bound to MPLS Traffic Engineered (MPLS-TE) tunnels.
Abstract
This document describes the methodology for benchmarking MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR) protection mechanisms for link and node protection. This document provides test methodologies and testbed setup for measuring failover times of Fast Reroute techniques while considering factors (such as underlying links) that might impact recovery times for real-time applications bound to MPLS Traffic Engineered (MPLS-TE) tunnels.
RFC 6790: The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- J. Drake
- S. Amante
- W. Henderickx
- L. Yong
- November 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Load balancing is a powerful tool for engineering traffic across a network. This memo suggests ways of improving load balancing across MPLS networks using the concept of "entropy labels". It defines the concept, describes why entropy labels are useful, enumerates properties of entropy labels that allow maximal benefit, and shows how they can be signaled and used for various applications. This document updates RFCs 3031, 3107, 3209, and 5036. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Load balancing is a powerful tool for engineering traffic across a network. This memo suggests ways of improving load balancing across MPLS networks using the concept of "entropy labels". It defines the concept, describes why entropy labels are useful, enumerates properties of entropy labels that allow maximal benefit, and shows how they can be signaled and used for various applications. This document updates RFCs 3031, 3107, 3209, and 5036. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6669: An Overview of the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS-Based Transport Networks
Informational- N. Sprecher
- L. Fang
- July 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides an overview of the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset for MPLS-based transport networks. The toolset consists of a comprehensive set of fault management and performance monitoring capabilities (operating in the data plane) that are appropriate for transport networks as required in RFC 5860 and support the network and services at different nested levels. This overview includes a brief recap of the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM requirements and functions and the generic mechanisms created in the MPLS data plane that allow the OAM packets to run in-band and share their fate with data packets. The protocol definitions for each of the MPLS-TP OAM tools are defined in separate documents (RFCs or Working Group documents), which are referenced by this document. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document provides an overview of the Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) toolset for MPLS-based transport networks. The toolset consists of a comprehensive set of fault management and performance monitoring capabilities (operating in the data plane) that are appropriate for transport networks as required in RFC 5860 and support the network and services at different nested levels. This overview includes a brief recap of the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM requirements and functions and the generic mechanisms created in the MPLS data plane that allow the OAM packets to run in-band and share their fate with data packets. The protocol definitions for each of the MPLS-TP OAM tools are defined in separate documents (RFCs or Working Group documents), which are referenced by this document. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6565: OSPFv3 as a Provider Edge to Customer Edge (PE-CE) Routing Protocol
Proposed Standard- P. Pillay-Esnault
- P. Moyer
- J. Doyle
- E. Ertekin
- M. Lundberg
- June 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many Service Providers (SPs) offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers using a technique in which Customer Edge (CE) routers are routing peers of Provider Edge (PE) routers. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. Support currently exists for both IPv4 and IPv6 VPNs; however, only Open Shortest Path First version 2 (OSPFv2) as PE-CE protocol is specified. This document extends those specifications to support OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) as a PE-CE routing protocol. The OSPFv3 PE-CE functionality is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Many Service Providers (SPs) offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers using a technique in which Customer Edge (CE) routers are routing peers of Provider Edge (PE) routers. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. Support currently exists for both IPv4 and IPv6 VPNs; however, only Open Shortest Path First version 2 (OSPFv2) as PE-CE protocol is specified. This document extends those specifications to support OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) as a PE-CE routing protocol. The OSPFv3 PE-CE functionality is identical to that of OSPFv2 except for the differences described in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6601: Generic Connection Admission Control (GCAC) Algorithm Specification for IP/MPLS Networks
Experimental- G. Ash
- D. McDysan
- April 2012
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document presents a generic connection admission control (GCAC) reference model and algorithm for IP-/MPLS-based networks. Service provider (SP) IP/MPLS networks need an MPLS GCAC mechanism, as one motivational example, to reject Voice over IP (VoIP) calls when additional calls would adversely affect calls already in progress. Without MPLS GCAC, connections on congested links will suffer degraded quality. The MPLS GCAC algorithm can be optionally implemented in vendor equipment and deployed by service providers. MPLS GCAC interoperates between vendor equipment and across multiple service provider domains. The MPLS GCAC algorithm uses available standard mechanisms for MPLS-based networks, such as RSVP, Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE), Path Computation Element (PCE), Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS), Diffserv, and OSPF. The MPLS GCAC algorithm does not include aspects of CAC that might be considered vendor proprietary implementations, such as detailed path selection mechanisms. MPLS GCAC functions are implemented in a distributed manner to deliver the objective Quality of Service (QoS) for specified QoS constraints. The objective is that the source is able to compute a source route with high likelihood that via-elements along the selected path will in fact admit the request. In some cases (e.g., multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes)), this objective cannot always be met, but this document summarizes methods that partially meet this objective. MPLS GCAC is applicable to any service or flow that must meet an objective QoS (delay, jitter, packet loss rate) for a specified quantity of traffic. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document presents a generic connection admission control (GCAC) reference model and algorithm for IP-/MPLS-based networks. Service provider (SP) IP/MPLS networks need an MPLS GCAC mechanism, as one motivational example, to reject Voice over IP (VoIP) calls when additional calls would adversely affect calls already in progress. Without MPLS GCAC, connections on congested links will suffer degraded quality. The MPLS GCAC algorithm can be optionally implemented in vendor equipment and deployed by service providers. MPLS GCAC interoperates between vendor equipment and across multiple service provider domains. The MPLS GCAC algorithm uses available standard mechanisms for MPLS-based networks, such as RSVP, Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE), Path Computation Element (PCE), Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS), Diffserv, and OSPF. The MPLS GCAC algorithm does not include aspects of CAC that might be considered vendor proprietary implementations, such as detailed path selection mechanisms. MPLS GCAC functions are implemented in a distributed manner to deliver the objective Quality of Service (QoS) for specified QoS constraints. The objective is that the source is able to compute a source route with high likelihood that via-elements along the selected path will in fact admit the request. In some cases (e.g., multiple Autonomous Systems (ASes)), this objective cannot always be met, but this document summarizes methods that partially meet this objective. MPLS GCAC is applicable to any service or flow that must meet an objective QoS (delay, jitter, packet loss rate) for a specified quantity of traffic. This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE Label Switched Paths
Proposed Standard- Z. Ali
- G. Swallow
- R. Aggarwal
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
There are many deployment scenarios that require an egress Label Switching Router (LSR) to receive binding of the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to an application and a payload identifier using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document defines protocol mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
There are many deployment scenarios that require an egress Label Switching Router (LSR) to receive binding of the Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to an application and a payload identifier using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document defines protocol mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6513: Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- R. Aggarwal
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service Provider. These protocols and procedures are specified in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
In order for IP multicast traffic within a BGP/MPLS IP VPN (Virtual Private Network) to travel from one VPN site to another, special protocols and procedures must be implemented by the VPN Service Provider. These protocols and procedures are specified in this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6514: BGP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs
Proposed Standard- R. Aggarwal
- E. Rosen
- T. Morin
- Y. Rekhter
- February 2012
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the BGP encodings and procedures for exchanging the information elements required by Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs, as specified in RFC 6513. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the BGP encodings and procedures for exchanging the information elements required by Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs, as specified in RFC 6513. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6425: Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping
Proposed Standard- S. Saxena
- G. Swallow
- Z. Ali
- A. Farrel
- S. Yasukawa
- T. Nadeau
- November 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Recent proposals have extended the scope of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) to encompass point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs.
The requirement for a simple and efficient mechanism that can be used to detect data-plane failures in point-to-point (P2P) MPLS LSPs has been recognized and has led to the development of techniques for fault detection and isolation commonly referred to as "LSP ping".
The scope of this document is fault detection and isolation for P2MP MPLS LSPs. This documents does not replace any of the mechanisms of LSP ping, but clarifies their applicability to MPLS P2MP LSPs, and extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP ping to the MPLS P2MP environment.
This document updates RFC 4379. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Recent proposals have extended the scope of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) to encompass point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs.
The requirement for a simple and efficient mechanism that can be used to detect data-plane failures in point-to-point (P2P) MPLS LSPs has been recognized and has led to the development of techniques for fault detection and isolation commonly referred to as "LSP ping".
The scope of this document is fault detection and isolation for P2MP MPLS LSPs. This documents does not replace any of the mechanisms of LSP ping, but clarifies their applicability to MPLS P2MP LSPs, and extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP ping to the MPLS P2MP environment.
This document updates RFC 4379. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6427: MPLS Fault Management Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Proposed Standard- G. Swallow
- A. Fulignoli
- M. Vigoureux
- S. Boutros
- D. Ward
- November 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) messages to indicate service disruptive conditions for MPLS-based transport network Label Switched Paths. The notification mechanism employs a generic method for a service disruptive condition to be communicated to a Maintenance Entity Group End Point. This document defines an MPLS OAM channel, along with messages to communicate various types of service disruptive conditions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) messages to indicate service disruptive conditions for MPLS-based transport network Label Switched Paths. The notification mechanism employs a generic method for a service disruptive condition to be communicated to a Maintenance Entity Group End Point. This document defines an MPLS OAM channel, along with messages to communicate various types of service disruptive conditions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6445: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base for Fast Reroute
Proposed Standard- T. Nadeau
- A. Koushik
- R. Cetin
- November 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used to support two fast reroute (FRR) methods for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based traffic engineering (TE). The two methods are the one-to-one backup method and the facility backup method. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used to support two fast reroute (FRR) methods for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based traffic engineering (TE). The two methods are the one-to-one backup method and the facility backup method. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6424: Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels
Proposed Standard- N. Bahadur
- K. Kompella
- G. Swallow
- November 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes methods for performing LSP ping (specified in RFC 4379) traceroute over MPLS tunnels and for traceroute of stitched MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform traceroute Forwarding Equivalency Class (FEC) validation and path discovery for an LSP that goes over other MPLS tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document deprecates the Downstream Mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379) in favor of a new TLV that, along with other procedures outlined in this document, can be used to trace such LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8029
Abstract
This document describes methods for performing LSP ping (specified in RFC 4379) traceroute over MPLS tunnels and for traceroute of stitched MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform traceroute Forwarding Equivalency Class (FEC) validation and path discovery for an LSP that goes over other MPLS tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document deprecates the Downstream Mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379) in favor of a new TLV that, along with other procedures outlined in this document, can be used to trace such LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6368: Internal BGP as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- P. Marques
- R. Raszuk
- K. Patel
- K. Kumaki
- T. Yamagata
- September 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions and procedures for BGP Provider/Customer Edge router iteration in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. These extensions and procedures have the objective of making the usage of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN transparent to the customer network, as far as routing information is concerned. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines protocol extensions and procedures for BGP Provider/Customer Edge router iteration in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. These extensions and procedures have the objective of making the usage of the BGP/MPLS IP VPN transparent to the customer network, as far as routing information is concerned. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6371: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks
Informational- I. Busi
- D. Allan
- September 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) is a packet-based transport technology based on the MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and pseudowire (PW) data-plane architectures.
This document describes a framework to support a comprehensive set of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) procedures that fulfill the MPLS-TP OAM requirements for fault, performance, and protection-switching management and that do not rely on the presence of a control plane.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
The Transport Profile of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TP) is a packet-based transport technology based on the MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and pseudowire (PW) data-plane architectures.
This document describes a framework to support a comprehensive set of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) procedures that fulfill the MPLS-TP OAM requirements for fault, performance, and protection-switching management and that do not rely on the presence of a control plane.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T.
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6374: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks
Proposed Standard- D. Frost
- S. Bryant
- September 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many service provider service level agreements (SLAs) depend on the ability to measure and monitor performance metrics for packet loss and one-way and two-way delay, as well as related metrics such as delay variation and channel throughput. This measurement capability also provides operators with greater visibility into the performance characteristics of their networks, thereby facilitating planning, troubleshooting, and network performance evaluation. This document specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and accurate measurement of these performance metrics in MPLS networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Many service provider service level agreements (SLAs) depend on the ability to measure and monitor performance metrics for packet loss and one-way and two-way delay, as well as related metrics such as delay variation and channel throughput. This measurement capability also provides operators with greater visibility into the performance characteristics of their networks, thereby facilitating planning, troubleshooting, and network performance evaluation. This document specifies protocol mechanisms to enable the efficient and accurate measurement of these performance metrics in MPLS networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6375: A Packet Loss and Delay Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks
Informational- D. Frost
- S. Bryant
- September 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in RFC 6374.
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet- switched transport networks.
This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-TP.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
Procedures and protocol mechanisms to enable efficient and accurate measurement of packet loss, delay, and throughput in MPLS networks are defined in RFC 6374.
The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is the set of MPLS protocol functions applicable to the construction and operation of packet- switched transport networks.
This document describes a profile of the general MPLS loss, delay, and throughput measurement techniques that suffices to meet the specific requirements of MPLS-TP.
This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 6178: Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
Proposed Standard- D. Smith
- J. Mullooly
- W. Jaeger
- T. Scholl
- March 2011
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies how Label Edge Routers (LERs) should behave when determining whether to MPLS encapsulate an IPv4 packet with header options. Lack of a formal standard has resulted in different LER forwarding behaviors for IPv4 packets with header options despite being associated with a prefix-based Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). IPv4 option packets that belong to a prefix-based FEC, yet are forwarded into an IPv4/MPLS network without being MPLS- encapsulated, present a security risk against the MPLS infrastructure. Further, LERs that are unable to MPLS encapsulate IPv4 packets with header options cannot operate in certain MPLS environments. While this newly defined LER behavior is mandatory to implement, it is optional to invoke. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies how Label Edge Routers (LERs) should behave when determining whether to MPLS encapsulate an IPv4 packet with header options. Lack of a formal standard has resulted in different LER forwarding behaviors for IPv4 packets with header options despite being associated with a prefix-based Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). IPv4 option packets that belong to a prefix-based FEC, yet are forwarded into an IPv4/MPLS network without being MPLS- encapsulated, present a security risk against the MPLS infrastructure. Further, LERs that are unable to MPLS encapsulate IPv4 packets with header options cannot operate in certain MPLS environments. While this newly defined LER behavior is mandatory to implement, it is optional to invoke. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 6037: Cisco Systems' Solution for Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
Historic- E. Rosen
- Y. Cai
- IJ. Wijnands
- October 2010
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document describes the MVPN (Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) solution designed and deployed by Cisco Systems. The procedures specified in this document are largely a subset of the generalized MVPN framework recently standardized by the IETF. However, as the deployment of the procedures specified herein predates the publication of IETF standards (in some cases by over five years), an implementation based on these procedures differs in some respects from a fully standards-compliant implementation. These differences are pointed out in the document. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes the MVPN (Multicast in BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) solution designed and deployed by Cisco Systems. The procedures specified in this document are largely a subset of the generalized MVPN framework recently standardized by the IETF. However, as the deployment of the procedures specified herein predates the publication of IETF standards (in some cases by over five years), an implementation based on these procedures differs in some respects from a fully standards-compliant implementation. These differences are pointed out in the document. This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
RFC 6006: Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Proposed Standard- Q. Zhao
- D. King
- F. Verhaeghe
- T. Takeda
- Z. Ali
- J. Meuric
- September 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.
This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8306
Abstract
Point-to-point Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) may be established using signaling techniques, but their paths may first need to be determined. The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.
This document describes extensions to the PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) to handle requests and responses for the computation of paths for P2MP TE LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5884: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- R. Aggarwal
- K. Kompella
- T. Nadeau
- G. Swallow
- June 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
One desirable application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is to detect a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) data plane failure. LSP Ping is an existing mechanism for detecting MPLS data plane failures and for verifying the MPLS LSP data plane against the control plane. BFD can be used for the former, but not for the latter. However, the control plane processing required for BFD Control packets is relatively smaller than the processing required for LSP Ping messages. A combination of LSP Ping and BFD can be used to provide faster data plane failure detection and/or make it possible to provide such detection on a greater number of LSPs. This document describes the applicability of BFD in relation to LSP Ping for this application. It also describes procedures for using BFD in this environment. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
One desirable application of Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) is to detect a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) data plane failure. LSP Ping is an existing mechanism for detecting MPLS data plane failures and for verifying the MPLS LSP data plane against the control plane. BFD can be used for the former, but not for the latter. However, the control plane processing required for BFD Control packets is relatively smaller than the processing required for LSP Ping messages. A combination of LSP Ping and BFD can be used to provide faster data plane failure detection and/or make it possible to provide such detection on a greater number of LSPs. This document describes the applicability of BFD in relation to LSP Ping for this application. It also describes procedures for using BFD in this environment. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5824: Requirements for Supporting Customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN
Informational- K. Kumaki
- R. Zhang
- Y. Kamite
- April 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Today, customers expect to run triple-play services through BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Some service providers will deploy services that request Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees from a local Customer Edge (CE) to a remote CE across the network. As a result, the application (e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.) requirements for an end-to-end QoS and reserving an adequate bandwidth continue to increase.
Service providers can use both an MPLS and an MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to meet their service objectives. This document describes service-provider requirements for supporting a customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
Today, customers expect to run triple-play services through BGP/MPLS IP-VPNs. Some service providers will deploy services that request Quality of Service (QoS) guarantees from a local Customer Edge (CE) to a remote CE across the network. As a result, the application (e.g., voice, video, bandwidth-guaranteed data pipe, etc.) requirements for an end-to-end QoS and reserving an adequate bandwidth continue to increase.
Service providers can use both an MPLS and an MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Path (LSP) to meet their service objectives. This document describes service-provider requirements for supporting a customer Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) and RSVP-TE over a BGP/MPLS IP-VPN. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5711: Node Behavior upon Originating and Receiving Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error Messages
Proposed Standard- JP. Vasseur
- G. Swallow
- I. Minei
- January 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The aim of this document is to describe a common practice with regard to the behavior of nodes that send and receive a Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Error messages for a preempted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). (For reference to the notion of TE LSP preemption, see RFC 3209.) This document does not define any new protocol extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The aim of this document is to describe a common practice with regard to the behavior of nodes that send and receive a Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Error messages for a preempted Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). (For reference to the notion of TE LSP preemption, see RFC 3209.) This document does not define any new protocol extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5712: MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption
Proposed Standard- M. Meyer
- JP. Vasseur
- January 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption, a suite of protocol modifications extending the concept of preemption with the goal of reducing or eliminating traffic disruption of preempted Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). Initially, MPLS RSVP-TE was defined with support for only immediate TE LSP displacement upon preemption. The utilization of a reroute request notification helps more gracefully mitigate the reroute process of preempted TE LSP. For the brief period soft preemption is activated, reservations (though not necessarily traffic levels) are in effect under-provisioned until the TE LSP(s) can be rerouted. For this reason, the feature is primarily, but not exclusively, interesting in MPLS-enabled IP networks with Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering capabilities. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption, a suite of protocol modifications extending the concept of preemption with the goal of reducing or eliminating traffic disruption of preempted Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). Initially, MPLS RSVP-TE was defined with support for only immediate TE LSP displacement upon preemption. The utilization of a reroute request notification helps more gracefully mitigate the reroute process of preempted TE LSP. For the brief period soft preemption is activated, reservations (though not necessarily traffic levels) are in effect under-provisioned until the TE LSP(s) can be rerouted. For this reason, the feature is primarily, but not exclusively, interesting in MPLS-enabled IP networks with Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering capabilities. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5714: IP Fast Reroute Framework
Informational- M. Shand
- S. Bryant
- January 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides a framework for the development of IP fast- reroute mechanisms that provide protection against link or router failure by invoking locally determined repair paths. Unlike MPLS fast-reroute, the mechanisms are applicable to a network employing conventional IP routing and forwarding. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
This document provides a framework for the development of IP fast- reroute mechanisms that provide protection against link or router failure by invoking locally determined repair paths. Unlike MPLS fast-reroute, the mechanisms are applicable to a network employing conventional IP routing and forwarding. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5715: A Framework for Loop-Free Convergence
Informational- M. Shand
- S. Bryant
- January 2010
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop that may occur transiently among two or more routers in a hop-by-hop packet forwarding paradigm.
This framework provides a summary of the causes and consequences of micro-loops and enables the reader to form a judgement on whether micro-looping is an issue that needs to be addressed in specific networks. It also provides a survey of the currently proposed mechanisms that may be used to prevent or to suppress the formation of micro-loops when an IP or MPLS network undergoes topology change due to failure, repair, or management action. When sufficiently fast convergence is not available and the topology is susceptible to micro-loops, use of one or more of these mechanisms may be desirable. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
Abstract
A micro-loop is a packet forwarding loop that may occur transiently among two or more routers in a hop-by-hop packet forwarding paradigm.
This framework provides a summary of the causes and consequences of micro-loops and enables the reader to form a judgement on whether micro-looping is an issue that needs to be addressed in specific networks. It also provides a survey of the currently proposed mechanisms that may be used to prevent or to suppress the formation of micro-loops when an IP or MPLS network undergoes topology change due to failure, repair, or management action. When sufficiently fast convergence is not available and the topology is susceptible to micro-loops, use of one or more of these mechanisms may be desirable. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
RFC 5695: MPLS Forwarding Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows
Informational- A. Akhter
- R. Asati
- C. Pignataro
- November 2009
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This document describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) forwarding devices, limited to the most common MPLS packet forwarding scenarios and delay measurements for each, considering IP flows. It builds upon the tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 1242, and other IETF Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes a methodology specific to the benchmarking of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) forwarding devices, limited to the most common MPLS packet forwarding scenarios and delay measurements for each, considering IP flows. It builds upon the tenets set forth in RFC 2544, RFC 1242, and other IETF Benchmarking Methodology Working Group (BMWG) efforts. This document seeks to extend these efforts to the MPLS paradigm. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5441: A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
Proposed Standard- JP. Vasseur
- R. Zhang
- N. Bitar
- JL. Le Roux
- April 2009
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems. This document specifies a procedure relying on the use of multiple Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute such inter-domain shortest constrained paths across a predetermined sequence of domains, using a backward-recursive path computation technique. This technique preserves confidentiality across domains, which is sometimes required when domains are managed by different service providers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems. This document specifies a procedure relying on the use of multiple Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute such inter-domain shortest constrained paths across a predetermined sequence of domains, using a backward-recursive path computation technique. This technique preserves confidentiality across domains, which is sometimes required when domains are managed by different service providers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5462: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field
Proposed Standard- L. Andersson
- R. Asati
- February 2009
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The early Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) documents defined the form of the MPLS label stack entry. This includes a three-bit field called the "EXP field". The exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use".
Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of Service" (CoS) field, it was not named a CoS field by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards documents define its usage as a CoS field.
To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has become increasingly necessary to rename this field. This document changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC field"). In doing so, it also updates documents that define the current use of the EXP field. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The early Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) documents defined the form of the MPLS label stack entry. This includes a three-bit field called the "EXP field". The exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use".
Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of Service" (CoS) field, it was not named a CoS field by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards documents define its usage as a CoS field.
To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has become increasingly necessary to rename this field. This document changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC field"). In doing so, it also updates documents that define the current use of the EXP field. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5439: An Analysis of Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks
Informational- S. Yasukawa
- A. Farrel
- O. Komolafe
- February 2009
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Traffic engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TE) is deployed in providers' core networks. As providers plan to grow these networks, they need to understand whether existing protocols and implementations can support the network sizes that they are planning.
This document presents an analysis of some of the scaling concerns for the number of Label Switching Paths (LSPs) in MPLS-TE core networks, and examines the value of two techniques (LSP hierarchies and multipoint-to-point LSPs) for improving scaling. The intention is to motivate the development of appropriate deployment techniques and protocol extensions to enable the application of MPLS-TE in large networks.
This document only considers the question of achieving scalability for the support of point-to-point MPLS-TE LSPs. Point-to-multipoint MPLS-TE LSPs are for future study. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
Traffic engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TE) is deployed in providers' core networks. As providers plan to grow these networks, they need to understand whether existing protocols and implementations can support the network sizes that they are planning.
This document presents an analysis of some of the scaling concerns for the number of Label Switching Paths (LSPs) in MPLS-TE core networks, and examines the value of two techniques (LSP hierarchies and multipoint-to-point LSPs) for improving scaling. The intention is to motivate the development of appropriate deployment techniques and protocol extensions to enable the application of MPLS-TE in large networks.
This document only considers the question of achieving scalability for the support of point-to-point MPLS-TE LSPs. Point-to-multipoint MPLS-TE LSPs are for future study. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 5330: A Link-Type sub-TLV to Convey the Number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Signalled with Zero Reserved Bandwidth across a Link
Proposed Standard- JP. Vasseur
- M. Meyer
- K. Kumaki
- A. Bonda
- October 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Several Link-type sub-Type-Length-Values (sub-TLVs) have been defined for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE), in order to advertise some link characteristics such as the available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric, administrative group, and so on. By making statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic carried onto a set of TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwidth (referred to as "unconstrained TE LSP" in this document), algorithms can be designed to load balance (existing or newly configured) unconstrained TE LSP across a set of equal cost paths. This requires knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a link. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic Engineering sub-TLV used to advertise the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a link. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Several Link-type sub-Type-Length-Values (sub-TLVs) have been defined for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE), in order to advertise some link characteristics such as the available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric, administrative group, and so on. By making statistical assumptions about the aggregated traffic carried onto a set of TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwidth (referred to as "unconstrained TE LSP" in this document), algorithms can be designed to load balance (existing or newly configured) unconstrained TE LSP across a set of equal cost paths. This requires knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a link. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic Engineering sub-TLV used to advertise the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a link. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5331: MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space
Proposed Standard- R. Aggarwal
- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 3031 limits the MPLS architecture to downstream-assigned MPLS labels. This document introduces the notion of upstream-assigned MPLS labels. It describes the procedures for upstream MPLS label assignment and introduces the concept of a "Context-Specific Label Space". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
RFC 3031 limits the MPLS architecture to downstream-assigned MPLS labels. This document introduces the notion of upstream-assigned MPLS labels. It describes the procedures for upstream MPLS label assignment and introduces the concept of a "Context-Specific Label Space". [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5332: MPLS Multicast Encapsulations
Proposed Standard- T. Eckert
- E. Rosen
- R. Aggarwal
- Y. Rekhter
- August 2008
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
RFC 3032 established two data link layer codepoints for MPLS, used to distinguish whether the data link layer frame is carrying an MPLS unicast or an MPLS multicast packet. However, this usage was never deployed. This specification updates RFC 3032 by redefining the meaning of these two codepoints. Both codepoints can now be used to carry multicast packets. The second codepoint (formerly the "multicast codepoint") is now to be used only on multiaccess media, and it is to mean "the top label of the following label stack is an upstream-assigned label".
RFC 3032 does not specify the destination address to be placed in the "MAC DA" (Medium Access Layer Destination Address) field of an ethernet frame that carries an MPLS multicast packet. This document provides that specification.
This document updates RFC 3032 and RFC 4023. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
RFC 3032 established two data link layer codepoints for MPLS, used to distinguish whether the data link layer frame is carrying an MPLS unicast or an MPLS multicast packet. However, this usage was never deployed. This specification updates RFC 3032 by redefining the meaning of these two codepoints. Both codepoints can now be used to carry multicast packets. The second codepoint (formerly the "multicast codepoint") is now to be used only on multiaccess media, and it is to mean "the top label of the following label stack is an upstream-assigned label".
RFC 3032 does not specify the destination address to be placed in the "MAC DA" (Medium Access Layer Destination Address) field of an ethernet frame that carries an MPLS multicast packet. This document provides that specification.
This document updates RFC 3032 and RFC 4023. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5129: Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS
Proposed Standard- B. Davie
- B. Briscoe
- J. Tay
- January 2008
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
RFC 3270 defines how to support the Diffserv architecture in MPLS networks, including how to encode Diffserv Code Points (DSCPs) in an MPLS header. DSCPs may be encoded in the EXP field, while other uses of that field are not precluded. RFC 3270 makes no statement about how Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) marking might be encoded in the MPLS header. This document defines how an operator might define some of the EXP codepoints for explicit congestion notification, without precluding other uses. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
RFC 3270 defines how to support the Diffserv architecture in MPLS networks, including how to encode Diffserv Code Points (DSCPs) in an MPLS header. DSCPs may be encoded in the EXP field, while other uses of that field are not precluded. RFC 3270 makes no statement about how Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) marking might be encoded in the MPLS header. This document defines how an operator might define some of the EXP codepoints for explicit congestion notification, without precluding other uses. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4950: ICMP Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching
Proposed Standard- R. Bonica
- D. Gan
- D. Tappan
- C. Pignataro
- August 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines an extension object that can be appended to selected multi-part ICMP messages. This extension permits Label Switching Routers to append MPLS information to ICMP messages, and has already been widely deployed. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines an extension object that can be appended to selected multi-part ICMP messages. This extension permits Label Switching Routers to append MPLS information to ICMP messages, and has already been widely deployed. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4928: BCP 128: Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks
Best Current Practice- G. Swallow
- S. Bryant
- L. Andersson
- June 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of currently deployed MPLS networks. This document makes best practice recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an MPLS network that wishes to avoid the reordering that can result from transmission of different packets from the same flow over multiple different equal cost paths. These recommendations rely on inspection of the IP version number field in packets. Despite the heuristic nature of the recommendations, they provide a relatively safe way to operate MPLS networks, even if future allocations of IP version numbers were made for some purpose. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This document describes the Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) behavior of currently deployed MPLS networks. This document makes best practice recommendations for anyone defining an application to run over an MPLS network that wishes to avoid the reordering that can result from transmission of different packets from the same flow over multiple different equal cost paths. These recommendations rely on inspection of the IP version number field in packets. Despite the heuristic nature of the recommendations, they provide a relatively safe way to operate MPLS networks, even if future allocations of IP version numbers were made for some purpose. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 4905: Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Layer 2 Frames over MPLS Networks
Historic- L. Martini
- E. Rosen
- N. El-Aawar
- June 2007
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes methods for encapsulating the Protocol Data Units (PDUs) of layer 2 protocols such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), or Ethernet for transport across an MPLS network. This document describes the so-called "draft-martini" protocol, which has since been superseded by the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group specifications described in RFC 4447 and related documents. This memo defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes methods for encapsulating the Protocol Data Units (PDUs) of layer 2 protocols such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), or Ethernet for transport across an MPLS network. This document describes the so-called "draft-martini" protocol, which has since been superseded by the Pseudowire Emulation Edge to Edge Working Group specifications described in RFC 4447 and related documents. This memo defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
RFC 4901: Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS
Proposed Standard- J. Ash
- J. Hand
- A. Malis
- June 2007
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
This specification defines how to use Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to route Header-Compressed (HC) packets over an MPLS label switched path. HC can significantly reduce packet-header overhead and, in combination with MPLS, can also increases bandwidth efficiency and processing scalability in terms of the maximum number of simultaneous compressed flows that use HC at each router). Here we define how MPLS pseudowires are used to transport the HC context and control messages between the ingress and egress MPLS label switching routers. This is defined for a specific set of existing HC mechanisms that might be used, for example, to support voice over IP. This specification also describes extension mechanisms to allow support for future, as yet to be defined, HC protocols. In this specification, each HC protocol operates independently over a single pseudowire instance, very much as it would over a single point-to-point link. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This specification defines how to use Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) to route Header-Compressed (HC) packets over an MPLS label switched path. HC can significantly reduce packet-header overhead and, in combination with MPLS, can also increases bandwidth efficiency and processing scalability in terms of the maximum number of simultaneous compressed flows that use HC at each router). Here we define how MPLS pseudowires are used to transport the HC context and control messages between the ingress and egress MPLS label switching routers. This is defined for a specific set of existing HC mechanisms that might be used, for example, to support voice over IP. This specification also describes extension mechanisms to allow support for future, as yet to be defined, HC protocols. In this specification, each HC protocol operates independently over a single pseudowire instance, very much as it would over a single point-to-point link. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Proposed Standard- R. Aggarwal
- D. Papadimitriou
- S. Yasukawa
- May 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the set up of Traffic Engineered (TE) point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The solution relies on RSVP-TE without requiring a multicast routing protocol in the Service Provider core. Protocol elements and procedures for this solution are described.
There can be various applications for P2MP TE LSPs such as IP multicast. Specification of how such applications will use a P2MP TE LSP is outside the scope of this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for the set up of Traffic Engineered (TE) point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. The solution relies on RSVP-TE without requiring a multicast routing protocol in the Service Provider core. Protocol elements and procedures for this solution are described.
There can be various applications for P2MP TE LSPs such as IP multicast. Specification of how such applications will use a P2MP TE LSP is outside the scope of this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4859: Codepoint Registry for the Flags Field in the Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object
Informational- A. Farrel
- April 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a new codepoint registry for the flags field in the Session Attribute object of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides instructions to IANA for the creation of a new codepoint registry for the flags field in the Session Attribute object of the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling messages used in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) signaling. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4829: Label Switched Path (LSP) Preemption Policies for MPLS Traffic Engineering
Informational- J. de Oliveira
- JP. Vasseur
- L. Chen
- C. Scoglio
- April 2007
- Independent Stream publication
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.
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.
RFC 4817: Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3
Proposed Standard- M. Townsley
- C. Pignataro
- S. Wainner
- T. Seely
- J. Young
- March 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3 (L2TPv3) defines a protocol for tunneling a variety of payload types over IP networks. This document defines how to carry an MPLS label stack and its payload over the L2TPv3 data encapsulation. This enables an application that traditionally requires an MPLS-enabled core network, to utilize an L2TPv3 encapsulation over an IP network instead. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol, Version 3 (L2TPv3) defines a protocol for tunneling a variety of payload types over IP networks. This document defines how to carry an MPLS label stack and its payload over the L2TPv3 data encapsulation. This enables an application that traditionally requires an MPLS-enabled core network, to utilize an L2TPv3 encapsulation over an IP network instead. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4804: Aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Reservations over MPLS TE/DS-TE Tunnels
Proposed Standard- F. Le Faucheur
- February 2007
- IETF publication
- Web and Internet Transport
Abstract
RFC 3175 specifies aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) end-to-end reservations over aggregate RSVP reservations. This document specifies aggregation of RSVP end-to-end reservations over MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnels or MPLS Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) tunnels. This approach is based on RFC 3175 and simply modifies the corresponding procedures for operations over MPLS TE tunnels instead of aggregate RSVP reservations. This approach can be used to achieve admission control of a very large number of flows in a scalable manner since the devices in the core of the network are unaware of the end-to-end RSVP reservations and are only aware of the MPLS TE tunnels. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
RFC 3175 specifies aggregation of Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) end-to-end reservations over aggregate RSVP reservations. This document specifies aggregation of RSVP end-to-end reservations over MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnels or MPLS Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) tunnels. This approach is based on RFC 3175 and simply modifies the corresponding procedures for operations over MPLS TE tunnels instead of aggregate RSVP reservations. This approach can be used to achieve admission control of a very large number of flows in a scalable manner since the devices in the core of the network are unaware of the end-to-end RSVP reservations and are only aware of the MPLS TE tunnels. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4798: Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)
Proposed Standard- J. De Clercq
- D. Ooms
- S. Prevost
- F. Le Faucheur
- February 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document explains how to interconnect IPv6 islands over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-enabled IPv4 cloud. This approach relies on IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE), which are Dual Stack in order to connect to IPv6 islands and to the MPLS core, which is only required to run IPv4 MPLS. The 6PE routers exchange the IPv6 reachability information transparently over the core using the Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) over IPv4. In doing so, the BGP Next Hop field is used to convey the IPv4 address of the 6PE router so that dynamically established IPv4-signaled MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) can be used without explicit tunnel configuration. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document explains how to interconnect IPv6 islands over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-enabled IPv4 cloud. This approach relies on IPv6 Provider Edge routers (6PE), which are Dual Stack in order to connect to IPv6 islands and to the MPLS core, which is only required to run IPv4 MPLS. The 6PE routers exchange the IPv6 reachability information transparently over the core using the Multiprotocol Border Gateway Protocol (MP-BGP) over IPv4. In doing so, the BGP Next Hop field is used to convey the IPv4 address of the 6PE router so that dynamically established IPv4-signaled MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) can be used without explicit tunnel configuration. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4797: Use of Provider Edge to Provider Edge (PE-PE) Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) or IP in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
Informational- Y. Rekhter
- R. Bonica
- E. Rosen
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes an implementation strategy for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in which the outermost MPLS label (i.e., the tunnel label) is replaced with either an IP header or an IP header with Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).
The implementation strategy described herein enables the deployment of BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology in networks whose edge devices are MPLS and VPN aware, but whose interior devices are not. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes an implementation strategy for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in which the outermost MPLS label (i.e., the tunnel label) is replaced with either an IP header or an IP header with Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE).
The implementation strategy described herein enables the deployment of BGP/MPLS IP VPN technology in networks whose edge devices are MPLS and VPN aware, but whose interior devices are not. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4781: Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP with MPLS
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- R. Aggarwal
- January 2007
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A mechanism for BGP that helps minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart has already been developed and is described in a separate document ("Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP"). This document extends this mechanism to minimize the negative effects on MPLS forwarding caused by the Label Switching Router's (LSR's) control plane restart, and specifically by the restart of its BGP component when BGP is used to carry MPLS labels and the LSR is capable of preserving the MPLS forwarding state across the restart.
The mechanism described in this document is agnostic with respect to the types of the addresses carried in the BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field. As such, it works in conjunction with any of the address families that could be carried in BGP (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
A mechanism for BGP that helps minimize the negative effects on routing caused by BGP restart has already been developed and is described in a separate document ("Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP"). This document extends this mechanism to minimize the negative effects on MPLS forwarding caused by the Label Switching Router's (LSR's) control plane restart, and specifically by the restart of its BGP component when BGP is used to carry MPLS labels and the LSR is capable of preserving the MPLS forwarding state across the restart.
The mechanism described in this document is agnostic with respect to the types of the addresses carried in the BGP Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) field. As such, it works in conjunction with any of the address families that could be carried in BGP (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4684: Constrained Route Distribution for Border Gateway Protocol/MultiProtocol Label Switching (BGP/MPLS) Internet Protocol (IP) Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- P. Marques
- R. Bonica
- L. Fang
- L. Martini
- R. Raszuk
- K. Patel
- J. Guichard
- November 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines Multi-Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) procedures that allow BGP speakers to exchange Route Target reachability information. This information can be used to build a route distribution graph in order to limit the propagation of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) between different autonomous systems or distinct clusters of the same autonomous system. This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines Multi-Protocol BGP (MP-BGP) procedures that allow BGP speakers to exchange Route Target reachability information. This information can be used to build a route distribution graph in order to limit the propagation of Virtual Private Network (VPN) Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) between different autonomous systems or distinct clusters of the same autonomous system. This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4687: Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks
Informational- S. Yasukawa
- A. Farrel
- D. King
- T. Nadeau
- September 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) has been extended to encompass point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). As with point-to-point MPLS LSPs, the requirement to detect, handle, and diagnose control and data plane defects is critical.
For operators deploying services based on P2MP MPLS LSPs, the detection and specification of how to handle those defects are important because such defects not only may affect the fundamentals of an MPLS network, but also may impact service level specification commitments for customers of their network.
This document describes requirements for data plane operations and management for P2MP MPLS LSPs. These requirements apply to all forms of P2MP MPLS LSPs, and include P2MP Traffic Engineered (TE) LSPs and multicast LSPs. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) has been extended to encompass point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). As with point-to-point MPLS LSPs, the requirement to detect, handle, and diagnose control and data plane defects is critical.
For operators deploying services based on P2MP MPLS LSPs, the detection and specification of how to handle those defects are important because such defects not only may affect the fundamentals of an MPLS network, but also may impact service level specification commitments for customers of their network.
This document describes requirements for data plane operations and management for P2MP MPLS LSPs. These requirements apply to all forms of P2MP MPLS LSPs, and include P2MP Traffic Engineered (TE) LSPs and multicast LSPs. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4659: BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for IPv6 VPN
Proposed Standard- J. De Clercq
- D. Ooms
- M. Carugi
- F. Le Faucheur
- September 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use its packet-switched backbone to provide Virtual Private Network (VPN) services for its IPv6 customers. This method reuses, and extends where necessary, the "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" method for support of IPv6. In BGP/MPLS IP VPN, "Multiprotocol BGP" is used for distributing IPv4 VPN routes over the service provider backbone, and MPLS is used to forward IPv4 VPN packets over the backbone. This document defines an IPv6 VPN address family and describes the corresponding IPv6 VPN route distribution in "Multiprotocol BGP".
This document defines support of the IPv6 VPN service over both an IPv4 and an IPv6 backbone, and for using various tunneling techniques over the core, including MPLS, IP-in-IP, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) and IPsec protected tunnels. The inter-working between an IPv4 site and an IPv6 site is outside the scope of this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use its packet-switched backbone to provide Virtual Private Network (VPN) services for its IPv6 customers. This method reuses, and extends where necessary, the "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" method for support of IPv6. In BGP/MPLS IP VPN, "Multiprotocol BGP" is used for distributing IPv4 VPN routes over the service provider backbone, and MPLS is used to forward IPv4 VPN packets over the backbone. This document defines an IPv6 VPN address family and describes the corresponding IPv6 VPN route distribution in "Multiprotocol BGP".
This document defines support of the IPv6 VPN service over both an IPv4 and an IPv6 backbone, and for using various tunneling techniques over the core, including MPLS, IP-in-IP, Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) and IPsec protected tunnels. The inter-working between an IPv4 site and an IPv6 site is outside the scope of this document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4576: Using a Link State Advertisement (LSA) Options Bit to Prevent Looping in BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- P. Psenak
- P. Pillay-Esnault
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies a procedure that deals with a particular issue that may arise when a Service Provider (SP) provides "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to a customer and the customer uses OSPFv2 to advertise its routes to the SP. In this situation, a Customer Edge (CE) Router and a Provider Edge (PE) Router are OSPF peers, and customer routes are sent via OSPFv2 from the CE to the PE. The customer routes are converted into BGP routes, and BGP carries them across the backbone to other PE routers. The routes are then converted back to OSPF routes sent via OSPF to other CE routers. As a result of this conversion, some of the information needed to prevent loops may be lost. A procedure is needed to ensure that once a route is sent from a PE to a CE, the route will be ignored by any PE that receives it back from a CE. This document specifies the necessary procedure, using one of the options bits in the LSA (Link State Advertisements) to indicate that an LSA has already been forwarded by a PE and should be ignored by any other PEs that see it. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies a procedure that deals with a particular issue that may arise when a Service Provider (SP) provides "BGP/MPLS IP VPN" service to a customer and the customer uses OSPFv2 to advertise its routes to the SP. In this situation, a Customer Edge (CE) Router and a Provider Edge (PE) Router are OSPF peers, and customer routes are sent via OSPFv2 from the CE to the PE. The customer routes are converted into BGP routes, and BGP carries them across the backbone to other PE routers. The routes are then converted back to OSPF routes sent via OSPF to other CE routers. As a result of this conversion, some of the information needed to prevent loops may be lost. A procedure is needed to ensure that once a route is sent from a PE to a CE, the route will be ignored by any PE that receives it back from a CE. This document specifies the necessary procedure, using one of the options bits in the LSA (Link State Advertisements) to indicate that an LSA has already been forwarded by a PE and should be ignored by any other PEs that see it. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4577: OSPF as the Provider/Customer Edge Protocol for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- P. Psenak
- P. Pillay-Esnault
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Many Service Providers offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers, using a technique in which customer edge routers (CE routers) are routing peers of provider edge routers (PE routers). The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. This is known as a "BGP/MPLS IP VPN". The base specification for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs presumes that the routing protocol on the interface between a PE router and a CE router is BGP. This document extends that specification by allowing the routing protocol on the PE/CE interface to be the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol.
This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Many Service Providers offer Virtual Private Network (VPN) services to their customers, using a technique in which customer edge routers (CE routers) are routing peers of provider edge routers (PE routers). The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is used to distribute the customer's routes across the provider's IP backbone network, and Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) is used to tunnel customer packets across the provider's backbone. This is known as a "BGP/MPLS IP VPN". The base specification for BGP/MPLS IP VPNs presumes that the routing protocol on the interface between a PE router and a CE router is BGP. This document extends that specification by allowing the routing protocol on the PE/CE interface to be the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) protocol.
This document updates RFC 4364. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4561: Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object
Proposed Standard- J.-P. Vasseur
- Z. Ali
- S. Sivabalan
- June 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address is required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a backup tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) on a downstream Label Switching Router (LSR). However, existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to find an MP address in multi-domain routing networks where a domain is defined as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot be used in order to protect inter-domain TE LSPs from a failure of an Area Border Router (ABR) or Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR). This document specifies the use of existing Record Route Object (RRO) IPv4 and IPv6 sub-objects (with a new flag defined) thus defining the node-id sub-object in order to solve this issue. The MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism mentioned in this document refers to the "Facility backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
In the context of MPLS TE Fast Reroute, the Merge Point (MP) address is required at the Point of Local Repair (PLR) in order to select a backup tunnel intersecting a fast reroutable Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) on a downstream Label Switching Router (LSR). However, existing protocol mechanisms are not sufficient to find an MP address in multi-domain routing networks where a domain is defined as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). Hence, the current MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism cannot be used in order to protect inter-domain TE LSPs from a failure of an Area Border Router (ABR) or Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR). This document specifies the use of existing Record Route Object (RRO) IPv4 and IPv6 sub-objects (with a new flag defined) thus defining the node-id sub-object in order to solve this issue. The MPLS Fast Reroute mechanism mentioned in this document refers to the "Facility backup" MPLS TE Fast Reroute method. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4461: Signaling Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic-Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Informational- S. Yasukawa
- April 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements for the establishment and maintenance of Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic-Engineered (TE) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
There is no intent to specify solution-specific details or application-specific requirements in this document.
The requirements presented in this document not only apply to packet-switched networks under the control of MPLS protocols, but also encompass the requirements of Layer Two Switching (L2SC), Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), lambda, and port switching networks managed by Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocols. Protocol solutions developed to meet the requirements set out in this document must attempt to be equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements for the establishment and maintenance of Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Traffic-Engineered (TE) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).
There is no intent to specify solution-specific details or application-specific requirements in this document.
The requirements presented in this document not only apply to packet-switched networks under the control of MPLS protocols, but also encompass the requirements of Layer Two Switching (L2SC), Time Division Multiplexing (TDM), lambda, and port switching networks managed by Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) protocols. Protocol solutions developed to meet the requirements set out in this document must attempt to be equally applicable to MPLS and GMPLS. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4420: Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Proposed Standard- A. Farrel
- D. Papadimitriou
- J.-P. Vasseur
- A. Ayyangar
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits.
This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis.
The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to GMPLS non-PSC LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 5420
Abstract
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits.
This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis.
The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to GMPLS non-PSC LSPs. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4382: MPLS/BGP Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) Management Information Base
Proposed Standard- T. Nadeau
- H. van der Linde
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) supporting this feature. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor Multiprotocol Label Switching Layer-3 Virtual Private Networks on a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) supporting this feature. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4364: BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- Y. Rekhter
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no "overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core routers do not need to know the VPN routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no "overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core routers do not need to know the VPN routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4365: Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Informational- E. Rosen
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document provides an Applicability Statement for the Virtual Private Network (VPN) solution described in RFC 4364 and other documents listed in the References section. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides an Applicability Statement for the Virtual Private Network (VPN) solution described in RFC 4364 and other documents listed in the References section. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4377: Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks
Informational- T. Nadeau
- M. Morrow
- G. Swallow
- D. Allan
- S. Matsushima
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies Operations and Management (OAM) requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS), as well as for applications of MPLS, such as pseudo-wire voice and virtual private network services. These requirements have been gathered from network operators who have extensive experience deploying MPLS networks. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document specifies Operations and Management (OAM) requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS), as well as for applications of MPLS, such as pseudo-wire voice and virtual private network services. These requirements have been gathered from network operators who have extensive experience deploying MPLS networks. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4378: A Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management (OAM)
Informational- D. Allan
- T. Nadeau
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document is a framework for how data plane protocols can be applied to operations and maintenance procedures for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). The document is structured to outline how Operations and Management (OAM) functionality can be used to assist in fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and security management, commonly known by the acronym FCAPS. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document is a framework for how data plane protocols can be applied to operations and maintenance procedures for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS). The document is structured to outline how Operations and Management (OAM) functionality can be used to assist in fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and security management, commonly known by the acronym FCAPS. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4379: Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- G. Swallow
- February 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). There are two parts to this document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation, and mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8029
Abstract
This document describes a simple and efficient mechanism that can be used to detect data plane failures in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). There are two parts to this document: information carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation, and mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4381: Analysis of the Security of BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)
Informational- M. Behringer
- February 2006
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
This document analyses the security of the BGP/MPLS IP virtual private network (VPN) architecture that is described in RFC 4364, for the benefit of service providers and VPN users.
The analysis shows that BGP/MPLS IP VPN networks can be as secure as traditional layer-2 VPN services using Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) or Frame Relay. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document analyses the security of the BGP/MPLS IP virtual private network (VPN) architecture that is described in RFC 4364, for the benefit of service providers and VPN users.
The analysis shows that BGP/MPLS IP VPN networks can be as secure as traditional layer-2 VPN services using Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) or Frame Relay. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4368: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label-Controlled Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and Frame-Relay Management Interface Definition
Proposed Standard- T. Nadeau
- S. Hegde
- January 2006
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines two MIB modules and corresponding MIB Object Definitions that describe how label-switching-controlled Frame-Relay and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) interfaces can be managed given the interface stacking as defined in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB and MPLS-TE-STD-MIB. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines two MIB modules and corresponding MIB Object Definitions that describe how label-switching-controlled Frame-Relay and Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) interfaces can be managed given the interface stacking as defined in the MPLS-LSR-STD-MIB and MPLS-TE-STD-MIB. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4220: Traffic Engineering Link Management Information Base
Proposed Standard- M. Dubuc
- T. Nadeau
- J. Lang
- November 2005
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling TE links as described in the Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling TE links as described in the Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) document. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4221: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview
Informational- T. Nadeau
- C. Srinivasan
- A. Farrel
- November 2005
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
A range of Management Information Base (MIB) modules has been developed to help model and manage the various aspects of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. These MIB modules are defined in separate documents that focus on the specific areas of responsibility of the modules that they describe.
This document describes the management architecture for MPLS and indicates the interrelationships between the different MIB modules used for MPLS network management. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
A range of Management Information Base (MIB) modules has been developed to help model and manage the various aspects of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. These MIB modules are defined in separate documents that focus on the specific areas of responsibility of the modules that they describe.
This document describes the management architecture for MPLS and indicates the interrelationships between the different MIB modules used for MPLS network management. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4216: MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements
Informational- R. Zhang
- J.-P. Vasseur
- November 2005
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document discusses requirements for the support of inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE). Its main objective is to present a set of requirements and scenarios which would result in general guidelines for the definition, selection, and specification development for any technical solution(s) meeting these requirements and supporting the scenarios. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document discusses requirements for the support of inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE). Its main objective is to present a set of requirements and scenarios which would result in general guidelines for the definition, selection, and specification development for any technical solution(s) meeting these requirements and supporting the scenarios. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4247: Requirements for Header Compression over MPLS
Informational- J. Ash
- B. Goode
- J. Hand
- R. Zhang
- November 2005
- IETF publication
- Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area
Abstract
Voice over IP (VoIP) typically uses the encapsulation voice/RTP/UDP/IP. When MPLS labels are added, this becomes voice/RTP/UDP/IP/MPLS-labels. For an MPLS VPN, the packet header is typically 48 bytes, while the voice payload is often no more than 30 bytes, for example. Header compression can significantly reduce the overhead through various compression mechanisms, such as enhanced compressed RTP (ECRTP) and robust header compression (ROHC). We consider using MPLS to route compressed packets over an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) without compression/decompression cycles at each router. This approach can increase the bandwidth efficiency as well as processing scalability of the maximum number of simultaneous flows that use header compression at each router. In this document, we give a problem statement, goals and requirements, and an example scenario. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
Voice over IP (VoIP) typically uses the encapsulation voice/RTP/UDP/IP. When MPLS labels are added, this becomes voice/RTP/UDP/IP/MPLS-labels. For an MPLS VPN, the packet header is typically 48 bytes, while the voice payload is often no more than 30 bytes, for example. Header compression can significantly reduce the overhead through various compression mechanisms, such as enhanced compressed RTP (ECRTP) and robust header compression (ROHC). We consider using MPLS to route compressed packets over an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) without compression/decompression cycles at each router. This approach can increase the bandwidth efficiency as well as processing scalability of the maximum number of simultaneous flows that use header compression at each router. In this document, we give a problem statement, goals and requirements, and an example scenario. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4182: Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS Explicit NULL
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- September 2005
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The label stack encoding for Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) defines a reserved label value known as "IPv4 Explicit NULL" and a reserved label value known as "IPv6 Explicit NULL". Previously, these labels were only legal when they occurred at the bottom of the MPLS label stack. This restriction is now removed, so that these label values may legally occur anywhere in the stack.
This document updates RFC 3032. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The label stack encoding for Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) defines a reserved label value known as "IPv4 Explicit NULL" and a reserved label value known as "IPv6 Explicit NULL". Previously, these labels were only legal when they occurred at the bottom of the MPLS label stack. This restriction is now removed, so that these label values may legally occur anywhere in the stack.
This document updates RFC 3032. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
Proposed Standard- F. Le Faucheur
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document specifies the protocol extensions for support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE). This includes generalization of the semantics of a number of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) extensions already defined for existing MPLS Traffic Engineering in RFC 3630, RFC 3784, and additional IGP extensions beyond those. This also includes extensions to RSVP-TE signaling beyond those already specified in RFC 3209 for existing MPLS Traffic Engineering. These extensions address the requirements for DS-TE spelled out in RFC 3564. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies the protocol extensions for support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE). This includes generalization of the semantics of a number of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) extensions already defined for existing MPLS Traffic Engineering in RFC 3630, RFC 3784, and additional IGP extensions beyond those. This also includes extensions to RSVP-TE signaling beyond those already specified in RFC 3209 for existing MPLS Traffic Engineering. These extensions address the requirements for DS-TE spelled out in RFC 3564. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4125: Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
Experimental- F. Le Faucheur
- W. Lai
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document provides specifications for one Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, which is referred to as the Maximum Allocation Model. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides specifications for one Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, which is referred to as the Maximum Allocation Model. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 4126: Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering & Performance Comparisons
Experimental- J. Ash
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document complements the Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) requirements document by giving a functional specification for the Maximum Allocation with Reservation (MAR) Bandwidth Constraints Model. Assumptions, applicability, and examples of the operation of the MAR Bandwidth Constraints Model are presented. MAR performance is analyzed relative to the criteria for selecting a Bandwidth Constraints Model, in order to provide guidance to user implementation of the model in their networks. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document complements the Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS-TE) requirements document by giving a functional specification for the Maximum Allocation with Reservation (MAR) Bandwidth Constraints Model. Assumptions, applicability, and examples of the operation of the MAR Bandwidth Constraints Model are presented. MAR performance is analyzed relative to the criteria for selecting a Bandwidth Constraints Model, in order to provide guidance to user implementation of the model in their networks. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 4127: Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
Experimental- F. Le Faucheur
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document provides specifications for one Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, which is referred to as the Russian Dolls Model. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document provides specifications for one Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, which is referred to as the Russian Dolls Model. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 4128: Bandwidth Constraints Models for Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering: Performance Evaluation
Informational- W. Lai
- June 2005
- Independent Stream publication
Abstract
"Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering Requirements", RFC 3564, specifies the requirements and selection criteria for Bandwidth Constraints Models. Two such models, the Maximum Allocation and the Russian Dolls, are described therein. This document complements RFC 3564 by presenting the results of a performance evaluation of these two models under various operational conditions: normal load, overload, preemption fully or partially enabled, pure blocking, or complete sharing. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
"Differentiated Services (Diffserv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering Requirements", RFC 3564, specifies the requirements and selection criteria for Bandwidth Constraints Models. Two such models, the Maximum Allocation and the Russian Dolls, are described therein. This document complements RFC 3564 by presenting the results of a performance evaluation of these two models under various operational conditions: normal load, overload, preemption fully or partially enabled, pure blocking, or complete sharing. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4105: Requirements for Inter-Area MPLS Traffic Engineering
Informational- J.-L. Le Roux
- J.-P. Vasseur
- J. Boyle
- June 2005
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document lists a detailed set of functional requirements for the support of inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering (inter-area MPLS TE). It is intended that solutions that specify procedures and protocol extensions for inter-area MPLS TE satisfy these requirements. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document lists a detailed set of functional requirements for the support of inter-area MPLS Traffic Engineering (inter-area MPLS TE). It is intended that solutions that specify procedures and protocol extensions for inter-area MPLS TE satisfy these requirements. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels
Proposed Standard- P. Pan
- G. Swallow
- A. Atlas
- May 2005
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines RSVP-TE extensions to establish backup label-switched path (LSP) tunnels for local repair of LSP tunnels. These mechanisms enable the re-direction of traffic onto backup LSP tunnels in 10s of milliseconds, in the event of a failure.
Two methods are defined here. The one-to-one backup method creates detour LSPs for each protected LSP at each potential point of local repair. The facility backup method creates a bypass tunnel to protect a potential failure point; by taking advantage of MPLS label stacking, this bypass tunnel can protect a set of LSPs that have similar backup constraints. Both methods can be used to protect links and nodes during network failure. The described behavior and extensions to RSVP allow nodes to implement either method or both and to interoperate in a mixed network. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines RSVP-TE extensions to establish backup label-switched path (LSP) tunnels for local repair of LSP tunnels. These mechanisms enable the re-direction of traffic onto backup LSP tunnels in 10s of milliseconds, in the event of a failure.
Two methods are defined here. The one-to-one backup method creates detour LSPs for each protected LSP at each potential point of local repair. The facility backup method creates a bypass tunnel to protect a potential failure point; by taking advantage of MPLS label stacking, this bypass tunnel can protect a set of LSPs that have similar backup constraints. Both methods can be used to protect links and nodes during network failure. The described behavior and extensions to RSVP allow nodes to implement either method or both and to interoperate in a mixed network. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 4023: Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
Proposed Standard- T. Worster
- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- March 2005
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Various applications of MPLS make use of label stacks with multiple entries. In some cases, it is possible to replace the top label of the stack with an IP-based encapsulation, thereby enabling the application to run over networks that do not have MPLS enabled in their core routers. This document specifies two IP-based encapsulations: MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation). Each of these is applicable in some circumstances. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Various applications of MPLS make use of label stacks with multiple entries. In some cases, it is possible to replace the top label of the stack with an IP-based encapsulation, thereby enabling the application to run over networks that do not have MPLS enabled in their core routers. This document specifies two IP-based encapsulations: MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation). Each of these is applicable in some circumstances. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3919: Remote Network Monitoring (RMON) Protocol Identifiers for IPv6 and Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Informational- E. Stephan
- J. Palet
- October 2004
- IETF publication
- Operations and Management Area
Abstract
This memo defines additional (to those in RFC 2896) protocol identifier examples for IP version 6 and MPLS protocols. These can be used to produce valid protocolDirTable ``INDEX`` encodings, as defined by the Remote Network Monitoring MIB (Management Information Base) Version 2 [RFC2021] and the RMON Protocol Identifier Reference [RFC2895].
This document contains additional (to those in RFC 2896) protocol identifier macros for well-known protocols. A conformant implementation of the RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021] can be accomplished without the use of these protocol identifiers, and accordingly, this document does not specify any IETF standard. It is published to encourage better interoperability between RMON-2 agent implementations, by providing RMON related IPv6 and MPLS protocol information. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo defines additional (to those in RFC 2896) protocol identifier examples for IP version 6 and MPLS protocols. These can be used to produce valid protocolDirTable ``INDEX`` encodings, as defined by the Remote Network Monitoring MIB (Management Information Base) Version 2 [RFC2021] and the RMON Protocol Identifier Reference [RFC2895].
This document contains additional (to those in RFC 2896) protocol identifier macros for well-known protocols. A conformant implementation of the RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021] can be accomplished without the use of these protocol identifiers, and accordingly, this document does not specify any IETF standard. It is published to encourage better interoperability between RMON-2 agent implementations, by providing RMON related IPv6 and MPLS protocol information. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3812: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)
Proposed Standard- C. Srinivasan
- A. Viswanathan
- T. Nadeau
- June 2004
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) based traffic engineering (TE). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) based traffic engineering (TE). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3813: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)
Proposed Standard- C. Srinivasan
- A. Viswanathan
- T. Nadeau
- June 2004
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines an portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines an portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects to configure and/or monitor a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3814: Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC-To-NHLFE) Management Information Base (MIB)
Proposed Standard- T. Nadeau
- C. Srinivasan
- A. Viswanathan
- June 2004
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for defining, configuring, and monitoring Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) to Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) mappings and corresponding actions for use with Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for defining, configuring, and monitoring Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) to Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) mappings and corresponding actions for use with Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3811: Definitions of Textual Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management
Proposed Standard- T. Nadeau
- J. Cucchiara
- June 2004
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) management information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) management information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will be imported and used in MPLS related MIB modules that would otherwise define their own representations. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3785: BCP 87: Use of Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Metric as a second MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
Best Current Practice- F. Le Faucheur
- R. Uppili
- A. Vedrenne
- P. Merckx
- T. Telkamp
- May 2004
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document describes a common practice on how the existing metric of Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) can be used as an alternative metric to the Traffic Engineering (TE) metric for Constraint Based Routing of MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering tunnels. This effectively results in the ability to perform Constraint Based Routing with optimization of one metric (e.g., link bandwidth) for some Traffic Engineering tunnels (e.g., Data Trunks) while optimizing another metric (e.g., propagation delay) for some other tunnels with different requirements (e.g., Voice Trunks). No protocol extensions or modifications are required. This text documents current router implementations and deployment practices. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Abstract
This document describes a common practice on how the existing metric of Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) can be used as an alternative metric to the Traffic Engineering (TE) metric for Constraint Based Routing of MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering tunnels. This effectively results in the ability to perform Constraint Based Routing with optimization of one metric (e.g., link bandwidth) for some Traffic Engineering tunnels (e.g., Data Trunks) while optimizing another metric (e.g., propagation delay) for some other tunnels with different requirements (e.g., Voice Trunks). No protocol extensions or modifications are required. This text documents current router implementations and deployment practices. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
RFC 3564: Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering
Informational- F. Le Faucheur
- W. Lai
- July 2003
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document presents Service Provider requirements for support of Differentiated Services (Diff-Serv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS- TE). Its objective is to provide guidance for the definition, selection and specification of a technical solution addressing these requirements. Specification for this solution itself is outside the scope of this document. A problem statement is first provided. Then, the document describes example applications scenarios identified by Service Providers where existing MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms fall short and Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering can address the needs. The detailed requirements that need to be addressed by the technical solution are also reviewed. Finally, the document identifies the evaluation criteria that should be considered for selection and definition of the technical solution. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document presents Service Provider requirements for support of Differentiated Services (Diff-Serv)-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering (DS- TE). Its objective is to provide guidance for the definition, selection and specification of a technical solution addressing these requirements. Specification for this solution itself is outside the scope of this document. A problem statement is first provided. Then, the document describes example applications scenarios identified by Service Providers where existing MPLS Traffic Engineering mechanisms fall short and Diff-Serv-aware Traffic Engineering can address the needs. The detailed requirements that need to be addressed by the technical solution are also reviewed. Finally, the document identifies the evaluation criteria that should be considered for selection and definition of the technical solution. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3496: Protocol Extension for Support of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Service Class-aware Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
Informational- A. G. Malis
- T. Hsiao
- March 2003
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document specifies a Resource ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extension for support of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Service Class-aware Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document specifies a Resource ReSerVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) signaling extension for support of Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) Service Class-aware Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3469: Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery
Informational- V. Sharma
- F. Hellstrand
- February 2003
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) integrates the label swapping forwarding paradigm with network layer routing. To deliver reliable service, MPLS requires a set of procedures to provide protection of the traffic carried on different paths. This requires that the label switching routers (LSRs) support fault detection, fault notification, and fault recovery mechanisms, and that MPLS signaling support the configuration of recovery. With these objectives in mind, this document specifies a framework for MPLS based recovery. Restart issues are not included in this framework. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
Multi-protocol label switching (MPLS) integrates the label swapping forwarding paradigm with network layer routing. To deliver reliable service, MPLS requires a set of procedures to provide protection of the traffic carried on different paths. This requires that the label switching routers (LSRs) support fault detection, fault notification, and fault recovery mechanisms, and that MPLS signaling support the configuration of recovery. With these objectives in mind, this document specifies a framework for MPLS based recovery. Restart issues are not included in this framework. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Proposed Standard- K. Kompella
- Y. Rekhter
- February 2003
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) does not provide support for unnumbered links. This document defines procedures and extensions to Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels (RSVP-TE), one of the MPLS TE signalling protocols, that are needed in order to support unnumbered links. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
Current signalling used by Multi-Protocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS TE) does not provide support for unnumbered links. This document defines procedures and extensions to Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) for Label Switched Path (LSP) Tunnels (RSVP-TE), one of the MPLS TE signalling protocols, that are needed in order to support unnumbered links. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3443: Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks
Proposed Standard- P. Agarwal
- B. Akyol
- January 2003
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes Time To Live (TTL) processing in hierarchical Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks and is motivated by the need to formalize a TTL-transparent mode of operation for an MPLS label-switched path. It updates RFC 3032, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding". TTL processing in both Pipe and Uniform Model hierarchical tunnels are specified with examples for both "push" and "pop" cases. The document also complements RFC 3270, "MPLS Support of Differentiated Services" and ties together the terminology introduced in that document with TTL processing in hierarchical MPLS networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes Time To Live (TTL) processing in hierarchical Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks and is motivated by the need to formalize a TTL-transparent mode of operation for an MPLS label-switched path. It updates RFC 3032, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding". TTL processing in both Pipe and Uniform Model hierarchical tunnels are specified with examples for both "push" and "pop" cases. The document also complements RFC 3270, "MPLS Support of Differentiated Services" and ties together the terminology introduced in that document with TTL processing in hierarchical MPLS networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3429: Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions
Informational- H. Ohta
- November 2002
- IETF publication
Abstract
This document describes the assignment of one of the reserved label values defined in RFC 3032 (MPLS label stack encoding) to the 'Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Alert Label' that is used by user-plane Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) OAM functions for identification of MPLS OAM packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes the assignment of one of the reserved label values defined in RFC 3032 (MPLS label stack encoding) to the 'Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Alert Label' that is used by user-plane Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) OAM functions for identification of MPLS OAM packets. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3353: Overview of IP Multicast in a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Environment
Informational- D. Ooms
- B. Sales
- W. Livens
- A. Acharya
- F. Griffoul
- F. Ansari
- August 2002
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document offers a framework for IP multicast deployment in an
MPLS environment. Issues arising when MPLS techniques are applied to
IP multicast are overviewed. The pros and cons of existing IP
multicast routing protocols in the context of MPLS are described and
the relation to the different trigger methods and label distribution
modes are discussed. The consequences of various layer 2 (L2)
technologies are listed. Both point-to-point and multi-access
networks are considered.
Abstract
This document offers a framework for IP multicast deployment in an
MPLS environment. Issues arising when MPLS techniques are applied to
IP multicast are overviewed. The pros and cons of existing IP
multicast routing protocols in the context of MPLS are described and
the relation to the different trigger methods and label distribution
modes are discussed. The consequences of various layer 2 (L2)
technologies are listed. Both point-to-point and multi-access
networks are considered.
RFC 3346: Applicability Statement for Traffic Engineering with MPLS
Informational- J. Boyle
- V. Gill
- A. Hannan
- D. Cooper
- D. Awduche
- B. Christian
- W.S. Lai
- August 2002
- IETF publication
- Sub-IP Area
Abstract
This document describes the applicability of Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) to traffic engineering in IP networks. Special
considerations for deployment of MPLS for traffic engineering in
operational contexts are discussed and the limitations of the MPLS
approach to traffic engineering are highlighted.
Abstract
This document describes the applicability of Multiprotocol Label
Switching (MPLS) to traffic engineering in IP networks. Special
considerations for deployment of MPLS for traffic engineering in
operational contexts are discussed and the limitations of the MPLS
approach to traffic engineering are highlighted.
RFC 3270: Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services
Proposed Standard- F. Le Faucheur
- L. Wu
- B. Davie
- S. Davari
- P. Vaananen
- R. Krishnan
- P. Cheval
- J. Heinanen
- May 2002
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines a flexible solution for support of Differentiated Services (Diff-Serv) over Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines a flexible solution for support of Differentiated Services (Diff-Serv) over Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels
Proposed Standard- D. Awduche
- L. Berger
- D. Gan
- T. Li
- V. Srinivasan
- G. Swallow
- December 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3210: Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels
Informational- D. Awduche
- A. Hannan
- X. Xiao
- December 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This memo discusses the applicability of "Extensions to RSVP (Resource ReSerVation Protocol) for LSP Tunnels". It highlights the protocol's principles of operation and describes the network context for which it was designed. Guidelines for deployment are offered and known protocol limitations are indicated. This document is intended to accompany the submission of "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels" onto the Internet standards track. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo discusses the applicability of "Extensions to RSVP (Resource ReSerVation Protocol) for LSP Tunnels". It highlights the protocol's principles of operation and describes the network context for which it was designed. Guidelines for deployment are offered and known protocol limitations are indicated. This document is intended to accompany the submission of "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels" onto the Internet standards track. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 3107: Carrying Label Information in BGP-4
Proposed Standard- Y. Rekhter
- E. Rosen
- May 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the way in which the label mapping information for a particular route is piggybacked in the same Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Update message that is used to distribute the route itself. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Obsoleted by RFC 8277
Abstract
This document specifies the way in which the label mapping information for a particular route is piggybacked in the same Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Update message that is used to distribute the route itself. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3063: MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism
Experimental- Y. Ohba
- Y. Katsube
- E. Rosen
- P. Doolan
- February 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This paper presents a simple mechanism, based on "threads", which can be used to prevent Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) from setting up label switched path (LSPs) which have loops. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
Abstract
This paper presents a simple mechanism, based on "threads", which can be used to prevent Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) from setting up label switched path (LSPs) which have loops. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community.
RFC 3031: Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- A. Viswanathan
- R. Callon
- January 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the architecture for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies the architecture for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3032: MPLS Label Stack Encoding
Proposed Standard- E. Rosen
- D. Tappan
- G. Fedorkow
- Y. Rekhter
- D. Farinacci
- T. Li
- A. Conta
- January 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document specifies the encoding to be used by an LSR in order to transmit labeled packets on Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) data links, on LAN data links, and possibly on other data links as well. This document also specifies rules and procedures for processing the various fields of the label stack encoding. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document specifies the encoding to be used by an LSR in order to transmit labeled packets on Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) data links, on LAN data links, and possibly on other data links as well. This document also specifies rules and procedures for processing the various fields of the label stack encoding. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3033: The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol
Proposed Standard- M. Suzuki
- January 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to specify the assignment of the information field and protocol identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
The purpose of this document is to specify the assignment of the information field and protocol identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 3034: Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification
Proposed Standard- A. Conta
- P. Doolan
- A. Malis
- January 2001
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document defines the model and generic mechanisms for Multiprotocol Label Switching on Frame Relay networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Abstract
This document defines the model and generic mechanisms for Multiprotocol Label Switching on Frame Relay networks. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 2917: A Core MPLS IP VPN Architecture
Informational- K. Muthukrishnan
- A. Malis
- September 2000
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This memo presents an approach for building core Virtual Private Network (VPN) services in a service provider's MPLS backbone. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This memo presents an approach for building core Virtual Private Network (VPN) services in a service provider's MPLS backbone. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS
Informational- D. Awduche
- J. Malcolm
- J. Agogbua
- M. O'Dell
- J. McManus
- September 1999
- IETF publication
- Routing Area
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements for Traffic Engineering over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). It identifies the functional capabilities required to implement policies that facilitate efficient and reliable network operations in an MPLS domain. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document presents a set of requirements for Traffic Engineering over Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). It identifies the functional capabilities required to implement policies that facilitate efficient and reliable network operations in an MPLS domain. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2547: BGP/MPLS VPNs
Informational- E. Rosen
- Y. Rekhter
- March 1999
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider with an IP backbone may provide VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) for its customers. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Obsoleted by RFC 4364
Abstract
This document describes a method by which a Service Provider with an IP backbone may provide VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) for its customers. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
RFC 2430: A Provider Architecture for Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering (PASTE)
Informational- T. Li
- Y. Rekhter
- October 1998
- Legacy publication
Abstract
This document describes the Provider Architecture for Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering (PASTE) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Abstract
This document describes the Provider Architecture for Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering (PASTE) for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Subscribe to MPLS
Get notified when:
- RFC changes to status, obsoleted by, updates, updated by, or subseries.
- New RFC added to this subject or below
- The subject was merged into another.