[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5512

Network Working Group                                  Pradosh Mohapatra
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expiration Date: August 2009
                                                              Eric Rosen
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                       February 04, 2009


     BGP Encapsulation SAFI and BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute


                 draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 04, 2009.


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2008 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 1]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   to this document.

Abstract

   In certain situations, transporting a packet from one Border Gateway
   Protocol (BGP) speaker to another, the BGP next hop, requires that
   the packet be encapsulated by the first BGP speaker and decapsulated
   by the second. To support these situations, there needs to be some
   agreement between the two BGP speakers with regard to the
   "encapsulation information", i.e., the format of the encapsulation
   header as well as the contents of various fields of the header.

   The encapsulation information need not be signaled for all
   encapsulation types. In the cases where the signaling is required
   (such as Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3), Generic
   Routing Encapsulation (GRE) with key), this draft specifies a method
   by which BGP speakers can signal encapsulation information to each
   other. The signaling is done by sending BGP updates using the
   "Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI)" and IPv4
   or IPv6 Address Family Identifier (AFI). In the cases where no
   encapsulation information needs to be signaled (such as GRE without
   key), this draft specifies a BGP extended community that can be
   attached to BGP UPDATE messages that carry payload prefixes to
   indicate the encapsulation protocol type to be used.



























Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 2]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009




Table of Contents

    1          Specification of requirements  ......................   3
    2          Introduction  .......................................   3
    3          Encapsulation NLRI Format  ..........................   5
    4          Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute  .....................   6
    4.1        Encapsulation sub-TLV  ..............................   8
    4.2        Protocol Type sub-TLV  ..............................   9
    4.3        Color sub-TLV  ......................................   9
    4.3.1      Color Extended Community  ...........................   9
    4.4        Tunnel Type Selection  ..............................  10
    4.5        BGP Encapsulation Extended Community  ...............  11
    5          Capability advertisement  ...........................  12
    6          Error Handling  .....................................  12
    7          Security Considerations  ............................  12
    8          IANA Considerations  ................................  12
    9          Acknowledgements  ...................................  13
   10          Normative References  ...............................  13
   11          Informative References  .............................  14
   12          Authors' Addresses  .................................  14






1. Specification of requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


2. Introduction

   Consider the case of a router R1 forwarding an IP packet P. Let D be
   P's IP destination address. R1 must look up D in its forwarding
   table.  Suppose that the "best match" route for D is route Q, where Q
   is a BGP-distributed route whose "BGP next hop" is router R2. And
   suppose further that the routers along the path from R1 to R2 have
   entries for R2 in their forwarding tables, but do NOT have entries
   for D in their forwarding tables. For example, the path from R1 to R2
   may be part of a "BGP-free core", where there are no BGP-distributed
   routes at all in the core. Or, as in [Softwires-Mesh-Frame-work], D
   may be an IPv4 address while the intermediate routers along the path
   from R1 to R2 may support only IPv6.



Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 3]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   In cases such as this, in order for R1 to properly forward packet P,
   it must encapsulate P, and send P "through  a tunnel" to  R2. For
   example, R1 may encapsulate P using GRE, L2TPv3, IP-in-IP, etc.,
   where the destination IP address of the encapsulation header is the
   address of R2.

   In order for R1 to encapsulate P for transport to R2, R1 must know
   what encapsulation protocol to use for transporting what sorts of
   packets to R2. R1 must also know how to fill in the various fields of
   the encapsulation header. With certain encapsulation types, this
   knowledge may be acquired by default or through manual configuration.
   Other encapsulation protocols have fields such as session id, key, or
   cookie which must be filled in. It would not be desirable to require
   every BGP speaker to be manually configured with the encapsulation
   information for every one of its BGP next hops.

   In this draft, we specify a way in which BGP itself can be used by a
   given BGP speaker to tell other BGP speakers, "if you need to
   encapsulate packets to be sent to me, here's the information you need
   to properly form the encapsulation header". A BGP speaker signals
   this information to other BGP speakers by using a distinguished SAFI
   value, the Encapsulation SAFI. The encapsulation SAFI can be used
   with the AFI for IPv4 or with the AFI for IPv6. The IPv4 AFI is used
   when the encapsulated packets are to be sent using IPv4; the IPv6 AFI
   is used when the encapsulated packets are to be sent using IPv6.

   In a given BGP update, the Network Layer Reachability Information
   (NLRI) of the encapsulation SAFI consists of the IP address (in the
   family specified by the AFI) of the originator of that update. The
   encapsulation information is specified in one or more BGP "tunnel
   encapsulation  attributes" (specified herein). These attributes
   specify the encapsulation protocols that may be used, as well as
   specifying whatever additional information (if any) is needed in
   order to properly use those protocols. Other attributes, e.g.,
   communities or extended communities, may also be included.

   Since the encapsulation information is coded as a set of attributes,
   one could ask  whether a new SAFI is really  required.  After all, a
   BGP speaker could simply  attach the tunnel encapsulation attributes
   to each prefix (like Q in our example) that it advertises.  But with
   that technique,  any change  in the encapsulation  information would
   cause a  very large number of  updates.  Unless one  really wants to
   specify different  encapsulation information for each  prefix, it is
   much  better  to  have  a   mechanism  in  which  a  change  in  the
   encapsulation information  causes a BGP speaker to  advertise only a
   single update. Conversely, when prefixes get modified, the tunnel
   encapsulation information need not be exchanged.




Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 4]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   In this specification, a single SAFI is used to carry information for
   all encapsulation protocols. One could have taken an alternative
   approach of defining a new SAFI for each encapsulation protocol.
   However, with the specified approach, encapsulation information can
   pass transparently and automatically through intermediate BGP
   speakers (e.g., route reflectors) that do not necessarily understand
   the encapsulation information. This works because the encapsulation
   attribute is defined as an optional transitive attribute. New
   encapsulations can thus be added without the need to reconfigure any
   intermediate BGP system. If adding a new encapsulation required using
   a new SAFI, the information for that encapsulation would not pass
   through intermediate BGP systems unless those systems were
   reconfigured to support the new SAFI.

   For encapsulation protocols where no encapsulation information needs
   to be signaled (such as GRE without key), the egress router MAY still
   want to specify the protocol to use for transporting packets from the
   ingress router. This draft specifies a new BGP extended community
   that can be attached to UPDATE messages that carry payload prefixes
   for this purpose.


3. Encapsulation NLRI Format

   The NLRI, defined below, is carried in BGP UPDATE messages [RFC4271]
   using BGP multiprotocol extensions [RFC4760] with an AFI of 1 or 2
   (IPv4 or IPv6) [IANA-AF] and a SAFI value to be assigned by IANA
   (called as Encapsulation SAFI).

   The NLRI is encoded in a format as defined in section 5 of [RFC4760]
   (a 2-tuple of the form <length, value>). The value field is
   structured as follows:

            +-----------------------------------------------+
            |       Endpoint address (Variable)             |
            +-----------------------------------------------+

     - Endpoint Address: This field identifies the BGP speaker
       originating the update. It is typically one of the interface
       addresses configured at the router. The length of the endpoint
       address is dependent on the AFI being advertised. If the AFI is
       set to IPv4 (1), the the endpoint address is a 4-octet IPv4
       address whereas if the AFI is set to IPv6 (2), the endpoint
       address is a 16-octet IPv6 address.

   An update message that carries the MP_REACH_NLRI or MP_UNREACH_NLRI
   attribute with Encapsulation SAFI MUST also carry the BGP mandatory
   attributes:  ORIGIN, AS_PATH, and LOCAL_PREF (for IBGP neighbors) as



Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 5]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   defined in [RFC4271]. In addition, such an update message can also
   contain any of the BGP optional attributes, like Community or
   Extended Community attribute to influence an action on the receiving
   speaker.

   When a BGP speaker advertises the Encapsulation NLRI via BGP, it uses
   its own address as the BGP nexthop in the MP_REACH_NLRI or
   MP_UNREACH_NLRI attribute. The nexthop address is set based on the
   AFI in the attribute.  For example, if the AFI is set to IPv4 (1),
   the nexthop is encoded as a 4-byte IPv4 address. If the AFI is set to
   IPv6 (2), the nexthop is encoded as a 16-byte IPv6 address of the
   router. On the receiving router, the BGP nexthop of such an update
   message is validated by performing a recursive route lookup operation
   in the routing table.

   Bestpath selection of Encapsulation NLRIs is governed by the decision
   process outlined in section 9.1 of [RFC4271]. The encapsulation data
   carried through other attributes in the message are to be used by the
   receiving router only if the NLRI has a bestpath.


4. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute

   Tunnel Encapsulation attribute is an optional transitive attribute
   that is composed of a set of Type-Length-Value (TLVs) encodings. The
   type code of the attribute is to be assigned by IANA. Each TLV
   contains information corresponding to a particular tunnel technology.
   The TLV is structured as follows:


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Tunnel Type (2 Octets)     |        Length (2 Octets)      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                             Value                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Tunnel Type (2 octets): It identifies the type of the tunneling
   technology being signaled. This document defines the following types:

     - L2TPv3 over IP [RFC3931]: Tunnel Type = 1







Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 6]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


     - GRE [RFC2784]: Tunnel Type = 2

     - IP in IP [RFC2003] [RFC4213]: Tunnel Type = 7

   Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt.

   Length (2 octets): the total number of octets of the Value field.

   Value (variable): The value is comprised of multiple sub-TLV's. Each
   sub-TLV consists of three fields: a one-octet type, one-octet length,
   and zero or more octets of value. The sub-TLV is structured as
   follows:


                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |      Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet)       |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Sub-TLV Length (1 Octet)      |
                   +-----------------------------------+
                   |     Sub-TLV Value (Variable)      |
                   |                                   |
                   +-----------------------------------+

   Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): Each sub-TLV type defines a certain property
   about the tunnel TLV that contains this sub-TLV. The following are
   the types defined in this document:

     - Encapsulation: sub-TLV type = 1

     - Protocol type: sub-TLV type = 2

     - Color: sub-TLV type = 4

   When the TLV is being processed by a BGP speaker that will be
   performing encapsulation, any unknown sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and
   skipped. However if the TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be
   ignored just because it contains an unknown sub-TLV.

   Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): the total number of octets of the sub-TLV
   value field.

   Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on the
   sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections define
   the encoding in detail.







Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 7]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


4.1. Encapsulation sub-TLV

   The syntax and semantics of the encapsulation sub-TLV is determined
   by the tunnel type of the TLV that contains this sub-TLV.

   When the tunnel type of the TLV is L2TPv3-over-IP, the following is
   the structure of the value field of the encapsulation sub-TLV:


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      Session ID (4 octets)                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                        Cookie (Variable)                      |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


     * Session ID: a non-zero 4-octet value locally assigned by the
       advertising router that serves as a lookup key in the incoming
       packet's context.

     * Cookie: an optional, variable length (encoded in octets - 0 to 8
       octets) value used by L2TPv3 to check the association of a
       received data message with the session identified by the Session
       ID. Generation and usage of the cookie value is as specified in
       [RFC3931].

       The length of the cookie is not encoded explicitly, but can be
       calculated as: (sub-TLV length - 4).

   When the tunnel type of the TLV is GRE, the following is the
   structure of the value field of the encapsulation sub-TLV:


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                      GRE Key (4 octets)                       |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


     * GRE Key: A 4 octet field [RFC2890] that is generated by the
       advertising router.  The actual method by which the key is
       obtained is beyond the scope of the document. The key is inserted
       into the GRE encapsulation header of the payload packets sent by



Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 8]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


       ingress routers to the advertising router. It is intended to be
       used for identifying extra context information about the received
       payload.

       Note that the key is optional. Unless a key value is being
       advertised, the GRE encapsulation sub-TLV MUST NOT be present.


4.2. Protocol Type sub-TLV

   The protocol type sub-TLV MAY be encoded to indicate the type of the
   payload packets that will be encapsulated with the tunnel parameters
   being signaled in the TLV. The value field of the sub-TLV contains a
   2-octet protocol type that is one of the types defined in [IANA-AF]
   as ETHER TYPEs.

   For example, if we want to use three L2TPv3 sessions, one carrying
   IPv4 packets, one carrying IPv6 packets, and one carrying MPLS
   packets, the egress router will include three TLVs of L2TPv3
   encapsulation type, each specifying a different session id and a
   different payload type. The protocol type sub-TLV for these will be
   IPv4 (protocol type = 0x0800), IPv6 (protocol type = 0x86dd), and
   MPLS (protocol type = 0x8847) respectively. This informs the ingress
   routers of the appropriate encapsulation information to use with each
   of the given protocol types. Insertion of the specified session id at
   the ingress routers allows the egress to process the incoming packets
   correctly, according to their protocol type.

   Inclusion of this sub-TLV depends on the tunnel type. It MUST be
   encoded for L2TPv3 tunnel type. On the other hand, the protocol type
   sub-TLV is not required for IP-in-IP or GRE tunnels.


4.3. Color sub-TLV

   The color sub-TLV MAY be encoded as a way to color the corresponding
   tunnel TLV. The value field of the sub-TLV contains an extended
   community that is defined as follows:


4.3.1. Color Extended Community

   The color extended community is an opaque extended community
   [RFC4360] with the following encoding:







Mohapatra & Rosen                                               [Page 9]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


         0                   1                   2                   3
         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |       0x03    |      TBD      |             Reserved          |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |                          Color Value                          |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The value of the high-order octet of the extended Type Field is 0x03,
   which indicates it is transitive. The value of the low-order octet of
   the extended type field for this community is TBD. The Color value is
   user defined and configured locally on the routers.  The same color
   extended community can then be attached to the UPDATE messages that
   contain payload prefixes. This way, the BGP speaker can express the
   fact that it expects the packets corresponding to these payload
   prefixes to be received with a particular tunnel encapsulation
   header.


4.4. Tunnel Type Selection

   A BGP speaker may include multiple tunnel TLVs in the tunnel
   attribute.  The receiving speaker MAY have local policies defined to
   choose different tunnel types for different sets/types of payload
   prefixes received from the same BGP speaker. For instance, if a BGP
   speaker includes both L2TPv3 and GRE tunnel types in the tunnel
   attribute and it also advertises IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes, the ingress
   router may have local policy defined to choose L2TPv3 for IPv4
   prefixes (provided the protocol type received in the tunnel attribute
   matches) and GRE for IPv6 prefixes.

   Additionally, the Encapsulation SAFI UPDATE message can contain a
   color sub-TLV for some or all of the tunnel TLVs. The BGP speaker
   SHOULD then attach a color extended community to payload prefixes to
   select the appropriate tunnel types.

   In a multi-vendor deployment that has routers supporting different
   tunneling technologies, including color sub-TLV to the Encapsulation
   SAFI UPDATE message can serve as a classification mechanism (for
   example, set A of routers for GRE and set B of routers for L2TPv3).
   The ingress router can then choose the encapsulation data
   appropriately while sending packets to an egress router.

   If a BGP speaker originates an update for prefix P with color C and
   with itself as the next hop, then it MUST also originate an encaps-
   SAFI update which contains the color C.

   Suppose that a BGP speaker receives an update for prefix P with color



Mohapatra & Rosen                                              [Page 10]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   C, that the BGP decision procedure has selected the route in that
   update as the best route to P, that the next hop is node N, but that
   an encapsulation SAFI update originating from node N containing color
   C has not been received. In this case, no route to P will be
   installed in the forwarding table unless and until the corresponding
   encapsulation SAFI update is received, or the BGP decision process
   selects a different route.

   Suppose that a BGP speaker receives an "uncolored" update for prefix
   P, with next hop N, and that the BGP speaker has also received an
   encapsulation SAFI originated by N, specifying one or more
   encapsulations that may or may not be colored. In this case, the
   choice of encapsulation is a matter of local policy. The only
   "default policy" necessary is to choose one of the encapsulations
   supported by the speaker.


4.5. BGP Encapsulation Extended Community

   We define a BGP opaque extended community that can be attached to BGP
   UPDATE messages to indicate the encapsulation protocol to be used for
   sending packets from an ingress router to an egress router.
   Considering our example from the "Introduction" section, R2 MAY
   include this extended community specifying a particular tunnel type
   to be used in the UPDATE message that carries route Q to R1. This is
   useful if there are no explicit encapsulation information to be
   signaled using the encap SAFI for a tunneling protocol (such as GRE
   without key).


         0                   1                   2                   3
         0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |       0x03    |      TBD      |             Reserved          |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
        |            Reserved           |          Tunnel Type          |
        +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The value of the high-order octet of the extended type field is 0x03,
   which indicates it's transitive. The value of the low-order octet of
   the extended type field is TBD.

   The last two octets of the value field encode a tunnel type as
   defined in this document.

   For interoperability, a speaker supporting encapsulation SAFI MUST
   implement the Encapsulation extended community.




Mohapatra & Rosen                                              [Page 11]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


5. Capability advertisement

   A BGP speaker that wishes to exchange tunnel endpoint information
   must use the Multiprotocol Extensions Capability Code as defined in
   [RFC4760], to advertise the corresponding (AFI, SAFI) pair.


6. Error Handling

   When a BGP speaker encounters an error while parsing the tunnel
   encapsulation attribute, the speaker MUST treat the UPDATE as a
   withdrawl of existing routes to the included encapsulation SAFI
   NLRIs, or discard the UPDATE if no such routes exist. A log entry
   should be raised for local analysis.


7. Security Considerations

   Security considerations applicable to Softwires can be found in the
   mesh framework [Softwires-Mesh-Frame-work]. In general, security
   issues of the tunnel protocols signalled through encapsulation SAFI
   are inherited.

   If a third party is able to modify any of the information that is
   used to form encapsulation headers, or to choose a tunnel type, or to
   choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data
   packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped.


8. IANA Considerations

   IANA shall assign a value from the "Subsequent Address Family"
   Registry, in the "Standards Action" range, to be called
   "Encapsulation SAFI", with this document as the reference.

   IANA shall assign a value from the "BGP Path Attributes" Registry, to
   be called "Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", with this document as the
   reference.

   IANA shall assign two new values from the "BGP Opaque Extended
   Community" type Registry.  Both are from the transitive range.  The
   first new value is called "Color Extended Community", and the second
   is called "Encapsulation Extended Community".  This document is the
   reference for both assignments.

   IANA shall set up a registry for "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
   Tunnel Types".  This is a registry of two-octet values (0-65535), to
   be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis.  The initial



Mohapatra & Rosen                                              [Page 12]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   assignments shall be as follows:

      Tunnel Name                             Type
      ---------------                         -----
      L2TPv3 over IP                            1
      GRE                                       2
      IP in IP                                  7

   IANA  shall set  up a  registry for  "BGP Tunnel  Encapsulation
   Attribute Sub-TLVs".   This  is a  registry  of  one-octet  values
   (0-255),  to  be assigned on  a "standards action/early allocation"
   basis.  This document is the reference.  The initial assignments are:

      Sub-TLV name                            Type
      -------------                           -----
      Encapsulation                             1
      Protocol type                             2
      Color                                     4


9. Acknowledgements

   This specification builds on prior work by Gargi Nalawade, Ruchi
   Kapoor, Dan Tappan, David Ward, Scott Wainner, Simon Barber, and
   Chris Metz. The current authors wish to thank all these authors for
   their contribution.

   The authors would like to thank John Scudder, Robert Raszuk, Keyur
   Patel, Chris Metz, Yakov Rekhter, Carlos Pignataro, and Brian
   Carpenter for their valuable comments and suggestions.


10. Normative References

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li T., and Hares S.(editors), "A Border
   Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)," RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC4760] Bates et al, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4," RFC
   4760, January 2007.

   [RFC4360]  Sangli, S., Tappan D., and Rekhter Y., "BGP Extended
   Communities Attribute," RFC 4360, February 2006.

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels," March 1997.

   [RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and Goyret, I., "Layer Two Tunneling
   Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)," RFC 3931, March 2005.



Mohapatra & Rosen                                              [Page 13]

Internet Draft   draft-ietf-softwire-encaps-safi-05.txt    February 2009


   [RFC2784] Farinacci et al, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)," RFC
   2784, March 2000.

   [RFC2890] Dommety, G. "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE,"
   RFC 2890, September 2000.

   [RFC2003] Perkins, C. "IP Encapsulation within IP," RFC 2003, October
   1996.

   [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and Gilligan, R., "Basic Transition Mechanisms
             for IPv6 Hosts and Routers," RFC 4213, October 2005.


11. Informative References

   [IANA-AF]  "Address Family Numbers," Reachable from
   http://www.iana.org/numbers.html.

   [Softwires-Mesh-Frame-work] Wu, J. et al, "Softwire Mesh Framework,"
   draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-framework-05.txt, September 2008.


12. Authors' Addresses


      Pradosh Mohapatra
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      170 Tasman Drive
      San Jose, CA, 95134
      Email: pmohapat@cisco.com



      Eric Rosen
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      1414 Massachusetts Avenue
      Boxborough, MA, 01719
      E-mail: erosen@cisco.com













Mohapatra & Rosen                                              [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/