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

Versions: (draft-wijnands-mpls-bier-encapsulation) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 RFC 8296

Internet Engineering Task Force                        IJ. Wijnands, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                           E. Rosen, Ed.
Expires: January 9, 2017                          Juniper Networks, Inc.
                                                             A. Dolganow
                                                                   Nokia
                                                             J. Tantsura
                                                                Ericsson
                                                               S. Aldrin
                                                            Google, Inc.
                                                               I. Meilik
                                                                Broadcom
                                                            July 8, 2016


   Encapsulation for Bit Index Explicit Replication in MPLS Networks
                 draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-05

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 bitstring 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 the BIER encapsulation to be used in an MPLS network.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."



Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The BIER-MPLS Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  BIER Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation  . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   [BIER_ARCH] describes a new architecture for the forwarding of
   multicast data packets.  That architecture provides optimal
   forwarding of multicast data packets through a "multicast domain".
   However, it does not require any explicit tree-building protocol, and
   does not require intermediate nodes to maintain any per-flow state.
   That architecture is known as "Bit Index Explicit Replication"
   (BIER).

   This document will use terminology defined in [BIER_ARCH].

   A router that supports BIER is known as a "Bit-Forwarding Router"
   (BFR).  A "BIER domain" is a connected set of Bit-Forwarding Routers
   (BFRs), each of which has been assigned a BFR-prefix.  A BFR-prefix
   is a routable IP address of a BFR, and is used by BIER to identify a



Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   BFR.  A packet enters a BIER domain at an ingress BFR (BFIR), and
   leaves the BIER domain at one or more egress BFRs (BFERs).  As
   specified in [BIER_ARCH], each BFR of a given BIER domain is
   provisioned to be in one or more "sub-domains".  In the context of a
   given sub-domain, each BFIR and BFER must have a BFR-id that is
   unique within that sub-domain.  A BFR-id is just a number in the
   range [1,65535] that, relative to a BIER sub-domain, identifies a BFR
   uniquely.

   As described in [BIER_ARCH], BIER requires that multicast data
   packets be encapsulated with a header that provides the information
   needed to support the BIER forwarding procedures.  This information
   includes the sub-domain to which the packet has been assigned, a Set-
   Id (SI), a BitString, and a BitStringLength.  Together these values
   identify the set of BFERs to which the packet must be delivered.

   This document is applicable when a given BIER domain is both an IGP
   domain and an MPLS network.  In this environment, the BIER
   encapsulation consists of two components:

   o  an MPLS label (which we will call the "BIER-MPLS label"); this
      label appears at the bottom of a packet's MPLS label stack.

   o  a BIER header, as specified in Section 3.

   Following the BIER header is the "payload".  The payload may be an
   IPv4 packet, an IPv6 packet, an ethernet frame, an MPLS packet, or an
   OAM packet.  If it is an MPLS packet, then an MPLS label stack
   immediately follows the BIER header.  The top label of this MPLS
   label stack may be either a downstream-assigned label [RFC3032] or an
   upstream-assigned label [RFC5331].  The BIER header contains
   information (the Next Protocol field) identifying the type of the
   payload.

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  The BIER-MPLS Label

   As stated in [BIER_ARCH], when a BIER domain is also an IGP domain,
   IGP extensions can be used by each BFR to advertise the BFR-id and
   BFR-prefix.  The extensions for OSPF are given in
   [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS].  The extensions for ISIS are given in
   [ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].

   When a particular BIER domain is both an IGP domain and an MPLS
   network, we assume that each BFR will also use IGP extensions to



Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   advertise a set of one or more "BIER-MPLS" labels.  When the domain
   contains a single sub-domain, a given BFR needs to advertise one such
   label for each combination of SI and BitStringLength.  If the domain
   contains multiple sub-domains, a BFR needs to advertise one such
   label per SI per BitStringLength for each sub-domain.

   The BIER-MPLS labels are locally significant (i.e., unique only to
   the BFR that advertises them) downstream-assigned MPLS labels.
   Penultimate hop popping MUST NOT be applied to a BIER-MPLS label.

   Suppose for example that there is a single sub-domain (the default
   sub-domain), that the network is using a BitStringLength of 256, and
   that all BFERs in the sub-domain have BFR-ids in the range [1,512].
   Since each BIER BitString is 256 bits long, this requires the use of
   two SIs: SI=0 and SI=1.  So each BFR will advertise, via IGP
   extensions, two MPLS labels for BIER: one corresponding to SI=0 and
   one corresponding to SI=1.  The advertisements of these labels will
   also bind each label to the default sub-domain and to the
   BitStringLength 256.

   As another example, suppose a particular BIER domain contains 2 sub-
   domains (sub-domain 0 and sub-domain 1), supports 2 BitStringLengths
   (256 and 512), and contains 1024 BFRs.  A BFR that is provisioned for
   both sub-domains, and that supports both BitStringLengths, would have
   to advertise the following set of BIER-MPLS labels:

      L1:   corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 0.

      L2:   corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 1.

      L3:   corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 2.

      L4:   corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 256, SI 3.

      L5:   corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 512, SI 0.

      L6:   corresponding to sub-domain 0, BitStringLength 512, SI 1.

      L7:   corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 0.

      L8:   corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 1.

      L9:   corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 2.

      L10:  corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 256, SI 3.

      L11:  corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 0.




Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


      L12:  corresponding to sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 1.

   The above example should not be taken as implying that the BFRs need
   to advertise 12 individual labels.  For instance, instead of
   advertising a label for <sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 0> and
   a label for <sub-domain 1, BitStringLength 512, SI 1>, a BFR could
   advertise a contiguous range of labels (in this case, a range
   containing exactly two labels) corresponding to <sub-domain 1,
   BitStringLength 512>.  The first label in the range could correspond
   to SI 0, and the second to SI 1.  The precise mechanism for
   generating and forming the advertisements is outside the scope of
   this document.  See [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS] and
   [ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS].

   Note that, in practice, labels only have to be assigned if they are
   going to be used.  If a particular BIER domain supports
   BitStringLengths 256 and 512, but some sub-domain, say sub-domain 1,
   only uses BitStringLength 256, then it is not necessary to assign
   labels that correspond to the combination of sub-domain 1 and
   BitStringLength 512.

   When a BFR receives an MPLS packet, and the next label to be
   processed is one of its BIER-MPLS labels, it will assume that a BIER
   header (see Section 3) immediately follows the stack.  It will also
   infer the packet's sub-domain, SI, and BitStringLength from the
   label.  The packet's "incoming TTL" (see below) is taken from the TTL
   field of the label stack entry that contains the BIER-MPLS label.

   The BFR MUST perform the MPLS TTL processing correctly.  If the
   packet is forwarded to one or more BFR adjacencies, the BIER-MPLS
   label carried by the forwarded packet MUST have a TTL field whose
   value is one less than that of the incoming TTL.

   Of course, if the incoming TTL is 1, the packet MUST be treated as a
   packet whose TTL has been exceeded.  The packet MUST NOT be
   forwarded, but it MAY be passed to other layers for processing (e.g.,
   to cause an ICMP message to be generated, and/or to invoke BIER-
   specific traceroute procedures, and/or to invoke other OAM
   procedures.)

3.  BIER Header

   The BIER header is shown in Figure 1.  This header appears after the
   end of the MPLS label stack, immediately after the MPLS-BIER label.







Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |0 1 0 1|  Ver  |  Len  |              Entropy                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                BitString  (first 32 bits)                     ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                                                               ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                BitString  (last 32 bits)                      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |OAM|     Reserved      | Proto |            BFIR-id            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                           Figure 1: BIER Header

   First nibble:

      The first 4 bits of the header are set to 0101; this ensures that
      the BIER header will not be confused with an IP header or with the
      header of a pseudowire packet.  If a BFR receives a BIER packet
      with any other value in the first nibble, it SHOULD discard the
      packet and log an error.

   Ver:

      This 4-bit field identifies the version of the BIER header.  This
      document specifies version 0 of the BIER header.  If a packet is
      received by a particular BFR, and that BFR does not support the
      specified version of the BIER header, the BFR MUST discard the
      packet and log an error.

      The value 0xF is reserved for experimental use; that value MUST
      NOT be assigned by any future IETF document or by IANA.

   Len:

      This 4-bit field encodes the length in bits of the BitString.

      Note: When parsing the BIER header, a BFR MUST infer the length of
      the BitString from the BIER-MPLS label, not from the value of this
      field.  This field is present only to enable off-line tools (such
      as LAN analyzers) to parse the BIER header.

      If k is the length of the BitString, the value of this field is
      log2(k)-5.  However, only certain values are supported:

         1: 64 bits



Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


         2: 128 bits

         3: 256 bits

         4: 512 bits

         5: 1024 bits

         6: 2048 bits

         7: 4096 bits

      The value of this field MUST NOT be set to any value other than
      those listed above.  A received packet containing another value in
      this field SHOULD be discarded, and an error logged.  If the value
      in this field is other than what is expected based on the BIER-
      MPLS label, the packet SHOULD be discarded and an error logged.

   Entropy:

      This 20-bit field specifies an "entropy" value that can be used
      for load balancing purposes.  The BIER forwarding process may do
      equal cost load balancing, but the load balancing procedure MUST
      choose the same path for any two packets have the same entropy
      value.

      If a BFIR is encapsulating (as the payload) MPLS packets that have
      entropy labels, the BFIR MUST ensure that if two such packets have
      the same MPLS entropy label, they also have the same value of the
      BIER entropy field.

   BitString:

      The BitString that, together with the packet's SI, identifies the
      destination BFERs for this packet.  Note that the SI for the
      packet is inferred from the BIER-MPLS label that precedes the BIER
      header.

   OAM:

      These two bits are used for the passive performance measurement
      marking method described in [PPM].

   Reserved:

      These 10 bits are currently unused.  They SHOULD be set to zero
      upon transmission, and MUST be ignored upon reception.




Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   Proto:

      This 4-bit "Next Protocol" field identifies the type of the
      payload.  (The "payload" is the packet or frame immediately
      following the BIER header.)  The protocol field may take any of
      the following values:

      1: MPLS packet with downstream-assigned label at top of stack.

      2: MPLS packet with upstream-assigned label at top of stack (see
         [RFC5331]).  If this value of the Proto field is used, the
         BFR-id of the BFIR must be placed in the BFIR-id field.  The
         BFIR-id provides the "context" in which the upstream-assigned
         label is interpreted.

      3: Ethernet frame.

      4: IPv4 packet.

      5: OAM packet [BIER-OAM].

      6: IPv6 packet.

      IANA is requested to set up a registry called "BIER Next Protocol
      Identifiers", with the above values being assigned initially.
      Values 0 and 15 are reserved.  Values 7-14 are available for
      assignment according to the Standards Action policy ([RFC5226] and
      [RFC7120]).

      If a BFER receives a BIER packet, but does not recognize (or does
      not support) the value of the Next Protocol field, the BFER SHOULD
      discard the packet and log an error.

   BFIR-id:

      By default, this is the BFR-id of the BFIR, in the sub-domain to
      which the packet has been assigned.  The BFR-id is encoded in the
      16-bit field as an unsigned integer in the range [1,65535].

      Certain applications may require that the BFIR-id field contain
      the BFR-id of a BFR other than the BFIR.  However, that usage of
      the BFIR-id field is outside the scope of the current document.

4.  Imposing and Processing the BIER Encapsulation

   When a BFIR receives a multicast packet from outside the BIER domain,
   the BFIR carries out the following procedure:




Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   1.  By consulting the "multicast flow overlay" [BIER_ARCH], it
       determines the value of the "Proto" field.

   2.  By consulting the "multicast flow overlay", it determines the set
       of BFERs that must receive the packet.

   3.  If more than one sub-domain is supported, the BFIR assigns the
       packet to a particular sub-domain.  Procedures for determining
       the sub-domain to which a particular packet should be assigned
       are outside the scope of this document.

   4.  The BFIR looks up the BFR-id, in the given sub-domain, of each of
       those BFERs.

   5.  The BFIR converts each such BFR-id into (SI, BitString) format,
       as described in [BIER_ARCH].

   6.  All such BFR-ids that have the same SI can be encoded into the
       same BitString.  Details of this encoding can be found in
       [BIER_ARCH].  For each distinct SI that occurs in the list of the
       packet's destination BFERs:

       a.   The BFIR makes a copy of the multicast data packet, and
            encapsulates the copy in a BIER header (see Section 3).  The
            BIER header contains the BitString that represents all the
            destination BFERs whose BFR-ids (in the given sub-domain)
            correspond to the given SI.  It also contains the BFIR's
            BFIR-id in the sub-domain to which the packet has been
            assigned.

            N.B.: For certain applications, it may be necessary for the
            BFIR-id field to contain the BFR-id of a BFR other than the
            BFIR that is creating the header.  Such uses are outside the
            scope of this document, but may be discussed in future
            revisions.

       b.   The BFIR then applies to that copy the forwarding procedure
            of [BIER_ARCH].  This may result in one or more copies of
            the packet (possibly with a modified BitString) being
            transmitted to a neighboring BFR.

       c.   Before transmitting a copy of the packet to a neighboring
            BFR, the BFIR finds the BIER-MPLS label that was advertised
            by the neighbor as corresponding to the given SI, sub-
            domain, and BitStringLength.  An MPLS label stack is then
            preprended to the packet.  This label stack [RFC3032] will
            contain one label, the aforementioned BIER-MPLS label.  The
            "S" bit MUST be set, indicating the end of the MPLS label



Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


            stack.  The TTL field of this label stack entry is set
            according to policy.  The packet may then be transmitted to
            the neighboring BFR.  (This may result in additional MPLS
            labels being pushed on the stack.  For example, if an RSVP-
            TE tunnel is used to transmit packets to the neighbor, a
            label representing that tunnel would be pushed onto the
            stack.)

   When an intermediate BFR is processing a received MPLS packet, and
   one of the BFR's own BIER-MPLS labels rises to the top of the label
   stack, the BFR infers the sub-domain, SI, and BitStringLength from
   the label.  The BFR then follows the forwarding procedures of
   [BIER_ARCH].  If it forwards a copy of the packet to a neighboring
   BFR, it first swaps the label at the top of the label stack with the
   BIER-MPLS label, advertised by that neighbor, that corresponds to the
   same SI, sub-domain, and BitStringLength.  Note that when this swap
   operation is done, the TTL field of the BIER-MPLS label of the
   outgoing packet MUST be one less than the "incoming TTL" of the
   packet, as defined in Section 2.

   Thus a BIER-encapsulated packet in an MPLS network consists of a
   packet that has:

   o  An MPLS label stack with a BIER-MPLS label at the bottom of the
      stack.

   o  A BIER header, as described in Section 3.

   o  The payload.

   The payload may be an IPv4 packet, an IPv6 packet, an ethernet frame,
   an MPLS packet, or an OAM packet.  If it is an MPLS packet, the BIER
   header is followed by a second MPLS label stack; this stack is
   separate from the stack that precedes the BIER header.  For an
   example of an application where it is useful to carry an MPLS packet
   as the BIER payload, see [BIER_MVPN].

5.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to set up a registry called "BIER Next Protocol
   Identifiers", with the values indicated in Section 3 being assigned
   initially.  Values 0 and 15 are reserved.  Values 7-14 are available
   for assignment according to the Standards Action policy ([RFC5226],
   [RFC7120].)







Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


6.  Security Considerations

   As this document makes use of MPLS, it inherits any security
   considerations that apply to the use of the MPLS data plane.

   As this document makes use of IGP extensions, it inherits any
   security considerations that apply to the IGP.

   The security considerations of [BIER_ARCH] also apply.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank Rajiv Asati, John Bettink, Nagendra Kumar,
   Christian Martin, Neale Ranns, Greg Shepherd, Ramji Vaithianathan,
   and Jeffrey Zhang for their ideas and contributions to this work.

8.  Contributor Addresses

   Below is a list of other contributing authors in alphabetical order:
































Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   Mach (Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei

   Email: mach.chen@huawei.com

   Arkadiy Gulko
   Thomson Reuters
   195 Broadway
   New York  NY 10007
   United States

   Email: arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com

   Wim Henderickx
   Nokia
   Copernicuslaan 50
   Antwerp 2018
   Belgium

   Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com

   Martin Horneffer
   Deutsche Telekom
   Hammer Str. 216-226
   Muenster 48153
   Germany

   Email: Martin.Horneffer@telekom.de

   Uwe Joorde
   Deutsche Telekom
   Hammer Str. 216-226
   Muenster  D-48153
   Germany

   Email: Uwe.Joorde@telekom.de

   Tony Przygienda
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
   Sunnyvale, California  94089
   United States

   Email: prz@juniper.net







Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [BIER_ARCH]
              Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T.,
              and S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
              Replication", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-architecture-
              03, January 2016.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5331]  Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
              Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
              RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5331>.

   [RFC7120]  Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
              Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
              2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [BIER-OAM]
              Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
              and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", internet-draft
              draft-kumarzheng-bier-ping-03.txt, July 2016.

   [BIER_MVPN]
              Rosen, E., Ed., Sivakumar, M., Wijnands, IJ., Aldrin, S.,
              Dolganow, A., and T. Przygienda, "Multicast VPN Using
              Bier", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-03, June 2016.






Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   [ISIS_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
              Ginsberg, L., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z. Zhang,
              "BIER Support via ISIS", internet-draft draft-ietf-bier-
              isis-extensions-02.txt, March 2016.

   [OSPF_BIER_EXTENSIONS]
              Psenak, P., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Zhang, Z., and S. Aldrin, "OSPF Extensions
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication", internet-draft draft-
              ietf-ospf-bier-extensions-02.txt, March 2016.

   [PPM]      Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., Fioccola, G., and T.
              Mizrahi, "IP Flow Performance Measurement Framework",
              draft-chen-ippm-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-06 (work in
              progress), March 2016.

Authors' Addresses

   IJsbrand Wijnands (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   Email: ice@cisco.com


   Eric C. Rosen (editor)
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   10 Technology Park Drive
   Westford, Massachusetts  01886
   United States

   Email: erosen@juniper.net


   Andrew Dolganow
   Nokia
   600 March Rd.
   Ottawa, Ontario  K2K 2E6
   Canada

   Email: andrew.dolganow@nokia.com








Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           BIER MPLS Encapsulation               July 2016


   Jeff Tantsura
   Ericsson
   300 Holger Way
   San Jose, California  95134
   United States

   Email: jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com


   Sam K Aldrin
   Google, Inc.
   1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
   Mountain View, California
   United States

   Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com


   Israel Meilik
   Broadcom

   Email: israel@broadcom.com





























Wijnands, et al.         Expires January 9, 2017               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/