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

Versions: 00 02 draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding

MPLS                                                  C. Villamizar, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     OCCNC
Intended status: Informational                               K. Kompella
Expires: October 1, 2013                                Contrail Systems
                                                               S. Amante
                                            Level 3 Communications, Inc.
                                                                A. Malis
                                                                 Verizon
                                                            C. Pignataro
                                                                   Cisco
                                                          March 30, 2013


        MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance Requirements
                  draft-villamizar-mpls-forwarding-02

Abstract

   This document provides guidelines for implementors regarding MPLS
   forwarding and a basis for evaluations of forwarding implementations.
   Guidelines cover many aspects of MPLS forwarding.  Topics are
   highlighted where implementors might potentially overlook practical
   requirements which are unstated or underemphasized or are optional
   for conformance to RFCs.

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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 1, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   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 and Document Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Use of Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     1.3.  Apparent Misconceptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     1.4.  Target Audience  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   2.  Forwarding Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.1.  Forwarding Basics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.1.  MPLS Reserved Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.1.2.  MPLS Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.1.3.  Time Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.1.4.  Uses of Multiple Label Stack Entries . . . . . . . . . 13
       2.1.5.  MPLS Link Bundling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.1.6.  MPLS Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.1.7.  MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.1.8.  Pseudowire Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
         2.1.8.1.  Pseudowire Sequence Number . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       2.1.9.  Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.2.  MPLS Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     2.3.  Packet Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     2.4.  MPLS Multipath Techniques  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       2.4.1.  Pseudowire Control Word  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       2.4.2.  Large Microflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       2.4.3.  Pseudowire Flow Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       2.4.4.  MPLS Entropy Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       2.4.5.  Fields Used for Multipath  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
         2.4.5.1.  MPLS Fields in Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
         2.4.5.2.  IP Fields in Multipath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
         2.4.5.3.  Fields Used in Flow Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
         2.4.5.4.  Fields Used in Entropy Label . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     2.5.  MPLS-TP and UHP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     2.6.  Local Delivery of Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       2.6.1.  DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       2.6.2.  MPLS OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       2.6.3.  Pseudowire OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
       2.6.4.  MPLS-TP OAM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
       2.6.5.  MPLS OAM and Layer-2 OAM Interworking  . . . . . . . . 31



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


       2.6.6.  Extent of OAM Support by Hardware  . . . . . . . . . . 32
     2.7.  Number and Size of Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   3.  Questions for Suppliers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     3.1.  Basic Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     3.2.  Basic Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     3.3.  Multipath Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 35
     3.4.  Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance  . . . . . . . . . 36
     3.5.  Entropy Label Support and Performance  . . . . . . . . . . 36
     3.6.  DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
     3.7.  OAM Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   4.  Forwarding Compliance and Performance Testing  . . . . . . . . 37
     4.1.  Basic Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     4.2.  Basic Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     4.3.  Multipath Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . 39
     4.4.  Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance  . . . . . . . . . 40
     4.5.  Entropy Label Support and Performance  . . . . . . . . . . 40
     4.6.  DoS Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
     4.7.  OAM Capabilities and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   5.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   Appendix A.  Organization of References Section  . . . . . . . . . 49
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

























Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


1.  Introduction and Document Scope

   The initial purpose of this document was to address concerns raised
   on the MPLS WG mailing list about shortcomings in implementations of
   MPLS forwarding.  Documenting existing misconceptions and potential
   pitfalls might potentially avoid repeating past mistakes.  The
   document has grown to address a broad set of forwarding requirements.

   The focus of this document is MPLS forwarding, base pseudowire
   forwarding, and MPLS OAM.  The use of pseudowire control word, and
   sequence number are discussed.  Specific pseudowire AC and NSP are
   out of scope.  Specific pseudowire applications, such as various
   forms of VPN, are out of scope.

   MPLS support for multipath techniques is considered essential by many
   service providers and is useful for other high capacity networks.  In
   order to obtain sufficient entropy from MPLS traffic service
   providers and others find it essential for the MPLS implementation to
   interpret the MPLS payload as IPv4 or IPv6 based on the contents of
   the first nibble of payload.  The use of IP addresses, the IP
   protocol field, and UDP and TCP port number fields in multipath load
   balancing are considered within scope.  The use of any other IP
   protocol fields, such as tunneling protocols carried within IP, are
   out of scope.

   Implementation details are a local matter and are out of scope.  Most
   interfaces today operate at 1 Gb/s or greater.  It is assumed that
   all forwarding operations are implemented in specialized forwarding
   hardware rather than on a special purpose processor.  This is often
   referred to as "fast path" and "slow path" processing.  Some
   recommendations are made regarding implemeting control or management
   plane functionality in specialized hardware or with limited
   assistance from specialized hardware.  This advise is based on
   expected control or management protocol loads and on the need for
   denial of service (DoS) protection.

1.1.  Acronyms

   The following acronyms are used.

   AC    Attachment Circuit ([RFC3985])

   ACH   Associated Channel Header (pseudowires)

   ACK   Acknowledgement (TCP flag and type of packet)






Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   AIS   Alarm Indication Signal (MPLS-TP OAM)

   ATM   Asynchronous Transfer Mode (legacy switched circuits)

   BFD   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection

   BGP   Border Gateway Protocol

   CC-CV Connectivity Check and Connectivity Verification

   CE    Customer Edge (LDP)

   CPU   Central Processing Unit (computer or microprocessor)

   CT    Class Type ([RFC4124])

   CW    Control Word ([RFC4385])

   DCCP  Datagram Congestion Control Protocol

   DDoS  Distributed Denial of Service

   DM    Delay Measurement (MPLS-TP OAM)

   DSCP  Differentiated Services Code Point ([RFC2474])

   DWDM  Dense Wave Division Multiplexing

   DoS   Denial of Service

   E-LSP EXP-Inferred-PSC LSP ([RFC3270])

   EBGP  External BGP

   ECMP  Equal Cost Multi-Path

   ECN   Explicit Congestion Notification ([RFC3168] and [RFC5129])

   EL    Entropy Label ([RFC6790])

   ELI   Entropy Label Indicator ([RFC6790])

   EXP   Experimental (field in MPLS renamed to TC in [RFC5462])

   FEC   Forwarding Equivalence Classes (LDP), also Forward Error
         Correction in other context





Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   FR    Frame Relay (legacy switched circuits)

   FRR   Fast Reroute ([RFC4090])

   G-ACh Generic Associated Channel ([RFC5586])

   GAL   Generic Associated Channel Label ([RFC5586])

   GFP   Generic Framing Protocol (used in OTN)

   GMPLS Generalized MPLS ([RFC3471])

   GTSM  Generalized TTL Security Mechanism ([RFC5082])

   Gb/s  Gigabits per second (billion bits per second)

   IANA  Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

   ILM   Incoming Label Map ([RFC3031])

   IP    Internet Protocol

   IPVPN Internet Protocol VPN

   IPv4  Internet Protocol version 4

   IPv6  Internet Protocol version 6

   L-LSP Label-Only-Inferred-PSC LSP ([RFC3270])

   L2VPN Layer 2 VPN

   LDP   Label Distribution Protocol ([RFC5036])

   LER   Label Edge Router ([RFC3031])

   LM    Loss Measurement (MPLS-TP OAM)

   LSP   Label Switched Path ([RFC3031])

   LSR   Label Switching Router ([RFC3031])

   MP2MP Multipoint to Point

   MPLS  MultiProtocol Label Switching ([RFC3031])






Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   MPLS-TP  MPLS Transport Profile ([RFC5317])

   Mb/s  Megabits per second (million bits per second)

   NSP   Native Service Processing ([RFC3985])

   NTP   Network Time Protocol

   OAM   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance ([RFC6291])

   OOB   Out-of-band (not carried within a data channel)

   OTN   Optical Transport Network

   P     Provider router (LDP)

   P2MP  Point to Multi-Point

   PE    Provider Edge router (LDP)

   PHB   Per-Hop-Behavior ([RFC2475])

   PHP   Penultimate Hop Popping ([RFC3443])

   POS   Packet over SONET

   PSC   This acronym has multiple interpretations.

         1.    Packet Switch Capable ([RFC3471]

         2.    PHB Scheduling Class ([RFC3270])

         3.    Protection State Coordination (MPLS-TP linear protection)

   PTP   Precision Time Protocol

   PW    Pseudowire

   QoS   Quality of Service

   RA    Router Alert ([RFC3032])

   RDI   Remote Defect Indication (MPLS-TP OAM)

   RSVP-TE  RSVP Traffic Engineering






Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   RTP   Real-Time Transport Protocol

   SCTP  Stream Control Transmission Protocol

   SDH   Synchronous Data Hierarchy (European SONET, a form of TDM)

   SONET Synchronous Optical Network (US SDH, a form of TDM)

   T-LDP Targeted LDP (LDP sessions over more than one hop)

   TC    Traffic Class ([RFC5462])

   TCP   Transmission Control Protocol

   TDM   Time-Division Multiplexing (legacy encapsulations)

   TOS   Type of Service (see [RFC2474])

   TTL   Time-to-live (a field in IP and MPLS headers)

   UDP   User Datagram Protocol

   UHP   Ultimate Hop Popping (opposite of PHP)

   VCCV  Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification ([RFC5085])

   VLAN  Virtual Local Area Network (Ethernet)

   VOQ   Virtual Output Queuing (switch fabric design)

   VPN   Virtual Private Network

   WG    Working Group

1.2.  Use of Requirements Language

   This document is informational.  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
   "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are used only where the
   requirement is specified in an existing RFC.  These keywords SHOULD
   be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   Advice given in this document does not use the upper case RFC 2119
   keywords, except where explicitly noted that the keywords indicate
   that operator experiences indicate a requirement, but there are no
   existing RFC requirements.  Such advice may be ignored by
   implementations.  Similarly, implementations not claiming conformance
   to specific RFCs may ignore the requirements of those RFCs.  In both



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   cases, implementators may be doing so at their own peril.

1.3.  Apparent Misconceptions

   In early generations of forwarding silicon (which might now be behind
   us), there apparently were some misconceptions about MPLS.  The
   following statements provide clarifications.

   1.  There are practical reasons to have more than one or two labels
       in an MPLS label stack.  Under some circumstances the label stack
       can become quite deep.  See Section 2.1.

   2.  The label stack MUST be considered to be arbitrarily deep.
       Section 3.27.4.  "Hierarchy: LSP Tunnels within LSPs" of RFC 3031
       [RFC3031] states "The label stack mechanism allows LSP tunneling
       to nest to any depth."  If a bottom of the label stack cannot be
       found, but sufficient number of labels exist to forward, an LSR
       MUST forward the packet.  An LSR MUST NOT assume the packet is
       malformed unless the end of packet is found before bottom of
       stack.  See Section 2.1.

   3.  In networks where deep label stacks are encountered, they are not
       rare.  Full packet rate performance is required regardless of
       label stack depth, except where multiple pop operations are
       required.  See Section 2.1.

   4.  Research has shown that long bursts of short packets with 40 byte
       or 44 byte IP payload sizes in these bursts are quite common.
       This is due to TCP ACK compression [ACK-compression].

       A.  A forwarding engine SHOULD, if practical, be able to sustain
           an arbitrarily long sequence of small packets arriving at
           full interface rate.

       B.  If indefinite full packet rate for small packets is not
           practical, a forwarding engine MUST be able to buffer a long
           sequence of small packets inbound to the on-chip decision
           engine and sustain full interface rate for some reasonable
           average packet rate.  Absent this small on-chip buffering,
           QoS agnostic packet drops can occur.

       See Section 2.3.

   5.  The implementor and system designer MUST support pseudowire
       control word if MPLS-TP is supported or if ACH is being used on a
       pseudowire [RFC5586].  The implementor and system designer SHOULD
       support pseudowire control word if MPLS-TP and [RFC5586] are not
       used [RFC5085].  Deployments SHOULD enable pseudowire control



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


       word.  See Section 2.4.1.

   6.  The implementor and system designer SHOULD support adding a
       pseudowire Flow Label [RFC6391].  Deployments MAY enable this
       feature for appropriate pseudowire types.  See Section 2.4.3.

   7.  The implementor and system designer SHOULD support adding an MPLS
       entropy label [RFC6790].  Deployments MAY enable this feature.
       See Section 2.4.4.

1.4.  Target Audience

   This document is intended for multiple audiences: implementor
   (implementing MPLS forwarding in silicon or in software); systems
   designer (putting together a MPLS forwarding systems); deployer
   (running an MPLS network).  These guidelines are intended to serve
   the following purposes:

   1.  Explain what to do and what not to do when a deep label stack is
       encountered. (audience: implementor)

   2.  Highlight pitfalls to look for when implementing an MPLS
       forwarding chip. (audience: implementor)

   3.  Provide a checklist of features and performance specifications to
       request. (audience: systems designer, deployer)

   4.  Provide a set of tests to perform. (audience: systems designer,
       deployer).

   The implementor, systems designer, and deployer have a transitive
   supplier customer relationship.  It is in the best interest of the
   supplier to review their product against their customer's checklist
   and customer's customer's checklist if applicable.


2.  Forwarding Issues

   A brief review of forwarding issues is provided in the subsections
   that follow.  This section provides some background on why some of
   these requirements exist.  The questions to ask of suppliers and
   testing is covered in the following sections, Section 3 and
   Section 4.

2.1.  Forwarding Basics

   Basic MPLS architecture and MPLS encapsulation, and therefore packet
   forwarding are defined in [RFC3031] and [RFC3032].  RFC3031 and



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   RFC3032 are somewhat LDP centric.  RSVP-TE supports traffic
   engineering (TE) and fast reroute, features that LDP lacks.  The base
   document for RSVP-TE based MPLS is [RFC3209].

   A few RFCs update RFC3032.  Those with impact on forwarding include
   the following.

   1.  TTL processing is clarified in [RFC3443].

   2.  The use of MPLS Explicit NULL is modified in [RFC4182].

   3.  Differentiated Services is supported by [RFC3270] and [RFC4124].
       The "EXP" field is renamed to "Traffic Class" in [RFC5462],
       removing any misconception that it was available for
       experimentation or could be ignored.

   4.  ECN is supported by [RFC5129].

   5.  The MPLS G-ACh and GAL are defined in [RFC5586].

   Other RFCs have implications to MPLS Forwarding and do not update
   RFC3032 or RFC3209, including:

   1.  The pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header (ACH), defined by
       [RFC5085], later generalized by the MPLS G-ACh [RFC5586].

   2.  The entropy label indicator (ELI) and entropy label (EL) are
       defined by [RFC6790].

   A few RFCs update RFC3209.  Those that are listed as updating RFC3209
   generally impact only RSVP-TE signaling.  Forwarding is modified by
   major extension built upon RFC3209.

   RFCs which impact forwarding are discussed in the following
   subsections.

2.1.1.  MPLS Reserved Labels

   [RFC3032] specifies that label values 0-15 are reserved labels with
   special meanings.  Three values of NULL label are defined (two of
   which are later updated by [RFC4182]) and a router-alert label is
   defined.  The original intent was that reserved labels, except the
   NULL labels, could be sent to the routing engine CPU rather than be
   processed in forwarding hardware.  Hardware support is required by
   new RFCs such as those defining entropy label and OAM processed as a
   result of receiving a GAL.  For new reserved labels, some
   accommodation is needed for LSR that will send the labels to a
   general purpose CPU or other highly programmable hardware.  For



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   example, ELI will only be sent to LSR which have signaled support for
   [RFC6790] and high OAM packet rate must be negotiated among
   endpoints.

   [RFC3429] reserves a label for ITU-T Y.1711, however Y.1711 does not
   work with multipath and its use is strongly discouraged.

   The current list of reserved labels can be found on the
   "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Values"
   registry reachable at IANA's pages at <http://www.iana.org>.

   When an unknown reserved label is encountered or a reserved label not
   directly handled in forwarding hardware is encountered, the packet
   should be sent to a general purpose CPU by default.  If this
   capability is supported, there must be an option to either drop or
   rate limit such packets on a per reserved label value basis.

2.1.2.  MPLS Differentiated Services

   [RFC2474] deprecates the IP Type of Service (TOS) and IP Precedence
   (Prec) fields and replaces them with the Differentiated Services
   Field more commonly known as the Differentiated Services Code Point
   (DSCP) field.  [RFC2475] defines the Differentiated Services
   architecture, which in other forum is often called a Quality of
   Service (QoS) architecture.

   MPLS uses the Traffic Class (TC) field to support Differentiated
   Services [RFC5462].  There are two primary documents describing how
   DSCP is mapped into TC.

   1.  [RFC3270] defines E-LSP and L-LSP.  E-LSP use a static mapping of
       DSCP into TC.  L-LSP uses a per LSP mapping of DSCP into TC, with
       one PHB Scheduling Class (PSC) per L-LSP.  Each PSC can use
       multiple Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) values.  For example, the Assured
       Forwarding service defines three PSC, each with three PHB
       [RFC2597].

   2.  [RFC4124] defines assignment of a class-type (CT) to an LSP,
       where a per CT static mapping of TC to PHB is used.  [RFC4124]
       provides a means to support up to eight E-LSP-like mappings of
       DSCP to TC.

   To meet Differentiated Services requirements specified in [RFC3270],
   the following forwarding requirements must be met.  An ingress LER
   MUST be able to select an LSP and then apply a per LSP map of DSCP
   into TC.  A midpoint LSR MUST be able to apply a per LSP map of TC to
   PHB.  The number of mappings supported will be far less than the
   number of LSP supported.



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


2.1.3.  Time Synchronization

   PTP or NTP may be carried over MPLS [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls].
   Generally NTP will be carried within IP with IP carried in MPLS
   [RFC5905].  Both PTP and NTP benefit from accurate time stamping of
   incoming packets and the ability to insert accurate time stamps in
   outgoing packets.  PTP correction which occurs when forwarding
   requires updating a timestamp compensation field based on the
   difference between packet arrival at an LSR and packet transmit time
   at that same LSR.

   Since the label stack depth may vary, hardware should allow a
   timestamp to be placed in an outgoing packet at any specified byte
   position.  It may be necessary to modify layer-2 checksums or frame
   check sequences after insertion.  PTP and NTP timestamp formats
   differ slightly.  If NTP or PTP is carried over UDP/IP or UDP/IP/
   MPLS, the UDP checksum will also have to be updated.

   Accurate time synchronization in addition to being generally useful
   is required for MPLS-TP delay measurement (DM) OAM.  See
   Section 2.6.4.

2.1.4.  Uses of Multiple Label Stack Entries

   MPLS deployments in the early part of the prior decade (circa 2000)
   tended to support either LDP or RSVP-TE.  LDP was favored by some for
   its ability to scale to a very large number of PE devices at the edge
   of the network, without adding deployment complexity.  RSVP-TE was
   favored, generally in the network core, where traffic engineering
   and/or fast reroute were considered important.

   Both LDP and RSVP-TE are used simultaneously within major Service
   Provider networks using a technique known as "LDP over RSVP-TE
   Tunneling".  This technique allows service providers to carry LDP
   tunnels, originating and terminating at PE's, inside of RSVP-TE
   tunnels, generally between Inter-City P routers, to take advantage of
   Traffic Engineering and Fast Re-Route on more expensive Inter-City
   and Inter-Continental Transport paths.  LDP over RSVP-TE tunneling
   requires a minimum of two MPLS labels: one each for LDP and RSVP-TE.

   The use of MPLS FRR [RFC4090] might add one more label to MPLS
   traffic, but only when FRR protection was in use.  If LDP over
   RSVP-TE is in use, and FRR protection is in use, then at least three
   MPLS labels are present on the label stack on the links through which
   the Bypass LSP traverses.  FRR is covered in Section 2.1.7.

   LDP L2VPN, LDP IPVPN, BGP L2VPN, and BGP IPVPN added support for VPN
   services that are deployed in the vast majority of service providers.



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   These VPN services added yet another label, bringing the label stack
   depth (when FRR is active) to four.

   Pseudowires and VPN are discussed in further detail in Section 2.1.8
   and Section 2.1.9.

2.1.5.  MPLS Link Bundling

   MPLS Link Bundling was the first RFC to address the need for multiple
   parallel links between nodes [RFC4201].  MPLS Link Bundling is
   notable in that it tried not to change MPLS forwarding, except in
   specifying the "All-Ones" component link.  MPLS Link Bundling is
   seldom if ever deployed.  Instead multipath techniques described in
   Section 2.4 are used.

2.1.6.  MPLS Hierarchy

   MPLS hierarchy is defined in [RFC4206].  Although RFC4206 is
   considered part of GMPLS, the Packet Switching Capable (PSC) portion
   of the MPLS hierarchy are applicable to MPLS and may be supported in
   an otherwise GMPLS free implementation.  The MPLS PSC hierarchy
   remains the most likely means of providing further scaling in an
   RSVP-TE MPLS network, particularly where the network is designed to
   provide RSVP-TE connectivity to the edges.  This is the case for
   envisioned MPLS-TP networks.  The use of the MPLS PSC hierarchy can
   add as many as four labels to a label stack, though it is likely that
   only one layer of PSC will be used in the near future.

2.1.7.  MPLS Fast Reroute (FRR)

   Fast reroute is defined by [RFC4090].  Two significantly different
   methods are the "One-to-One Backup" method which uses the "Detour
   LSP" and the " Facility Backup" which uses a "bypass tunnel".  These
   are commonly referred to as the detour and bypass methods
   respectively.

   The detour method makes use of a presignaled LSP.  Hardware
   assistance is needed for detour FRR only if necessary to accomplish
   local repair of a large number of LSP within the 10s of milliseconds
   target.  For each affected LSP a swap operation must be reprogrammed
   or otherwise switched over.  The use of detour FRR doubles the number
   of LSP terminating at any given hop and will increase the number of
   LSP within a network by a factor dependent on the average detour path
   length.

   The bypass method makes use of a tunnel that is unused when no fault
   exists but may carry many LSP when a local repair is required.  There
   is no presignaling indicating which working LSP will be diverted into



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   any specific bypass LSP.  The egress LSR of the bypass LSP MUST use
   platform label space (as defined in [RFC3031]) so that an LSP working
   path on any give interface can be backed up using a bypass LSP
   terminating on any other interface.  Hardware assistance is needed if
   necessary to accomplish local repair of a large number of LSP within
   the 10s of milliseconds target.  For each affected LSP a swap
   operation must be reprogrammed or otherwise switched over with an
   additional push of the bypass LSP label.  In addition the use of
   platform label space impacts the size of the LSR ILM for LSR with a
   very large number of interfaces.

2.1.8.  Pseudowire Encapsulation

   The pseudowire (PW) architecture is defined in [RFC3985].  A
   pseudowire, when carried over MPLS, adds one or more additional label
   entries to the MPLS label stack.  A PW Control Word is defined in
   [RFC4385] with motivation for defining the control word in [RFC4928].
   The PW Associated Channel defined in [RFC4385] is used for OAM in
   [RFC5085].  The PW Flow Label is defined in [RFC6391] and is
   discussed further in this document in Section 2.4.3.

   There are numerous pseudowire encapsulations, supporting emulation of
   services such as Frame Relay, ATM, Ethernet, TDM, and SONET/SDH over
   packet switched networks (PSNs) using IP or MPLS.

   The pseudowire encapsulation is out of scope for this document.
   Pseudowire impact on MPLS forwarding at midpoint LSR is within scope.
   The impact on ingress MPLS push and egress MPLS UHP pop are within
   scope.  While pseudowire encapsulation is out of scope, some advice
   is given on sequence number support.

2.1.8.1.  Pseudowire Sequence Number

   Pseudowire (PW) sequence number support is most important for PW
   payload types with a high expectation of in-order delivery.
   Resequencing support, rather than dropping at egress on out of order
   arrival, is most important for PW payload types with a high
   expectation of lossless delivery.  For example, TDM payloads require
   sequence number support and require resequencing support.  The same
   is true of ATM CBR service.  ATM VBR or ABR may have somewhat relaxed
   requirements, but generally require ATM Early Packet Discard (EPD) or
   ATM Partial Packet Discard (PPD) [ATM-EPD-and-PPD].  Though sequence
   number support and resequencing support are beneficial to PW packet
   oriented payloads such as FR and Ethernet, they are highly desirable
   but not as strongly required.

   Packet reorder should be rare except in a small number of
   circumstances, most of which are due to network design or equipment



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   design errors:

   1.  The most common case is where reordering occurs is rare,
       occurring only when a network or equipment fault forces traffic
       on a new path with different delay.  The packet loss that
       accompanies a network or equipment fault is generally more
       disruptive than any reordering which may occur.

   2.  A path change can be caused by reasons other than a network or
       equipment fault, such as administrative routing change.  This may
       result in packet reordering but generally without any packet
       loss.

   3.  If the edge is not using pseudowire control word (CW) and the
       core is using multipath, reordering will be far more common.  If
       this is occurring, the best solution is to use CW on the edge,
       rather than try to fix the reordering using resequencing.

   4.  Another avoidable case is where some core equipment has multipath
       and for some reason insists on periodically installing a new
       random number as the multipath hash seed.  If supporting MPLS-TP,
       equipment MUST provide a means to disable periodic hash reseeding
       and deployments MUST disable periodic hash reseeding.  Even if
       not supporting MPLS-TP, equipment should provide a means to
       disable periodic hash reseeding and deployments should disable
       periodic hash reseeding.

2.1.9.  Layer-2 and Layer-3 VPN

   Layer-2 VPN [RFC4664] and Layer-3 VPN [RFC4110] add one or more label
   entry to the MPLS label stack.  VPN encapsulations are out of scope
   for this document.  Its impact on forwarding at midpoint LSR are
   within scope.

   Any of these services may be used on an MPLS entropy label enabled
   ingress and egress (see Section 2.4.4 for discussion of entropy
   label) which would add an additional label to the MPLS label stack.
   The need to provide a useful entropy label value impacts the
   requirements of the VPN ingress LER but is out of scope for this
   document.

2.2.  MPLS Multicast

   MPLS Multicast encapsulation is clarified in [RFC5332].  MPLS
   Multicast may be signaled using RSVP-TE [RFC4875] or LDP [RFC6388].

   [RFC4875] defines a root initiated RSVP-TE LSP setup rather than leaf
   initiated join used in IP multicast.  [RFC6388] defines a leaf



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   initiated LDP setup.  Both [RFC4875] and [RFC6388] define point to
   multipoint (P2MP) LSP setup.  [RFC6388] also defined multipoint to
   multipoint (MP2MP) LSP setup.

   The P2MP LSP have a single source.  An LSR may be a leaf node, an
   intermediate node, or a "bud" node.  A bud serves as both a leaf and
   intermediate.  At a leaf an MPLS pop is performed.  The payload may
   be a IP Multicast packet that requires further replication.  At an
   intermediate node a MPLS swap operation is performed.  The bud
   requires that both a pop operation and a swap operation be performed
   for the same incoming packet.

   One strategy to support P2MP functionality is to pop at the LSR
   ingress and then optionally push labels at each LSR egress.  A given
   LSR egress chip may support multiple egress interfaces, each of which
   requires a copy, but each with a different set of added labels and
   layer-2 encapsulation.  Some physical interfaces may have multiple
   sub-interfaces (such as Ethernet VLAN or channelized interfaces) each
   requiring a copy.

   If packet replication is performed at LSR ingress, then the ingress
   interface performance may suffer.  If the packet replication is
   performed within a LSR switching fabric and at LSR egress, congestion
   of egress interfaces cannot make use of backpressure to ingress
   interfaces using techniques such as virtual output queuing (VOQ).  If
   buffering is primarily supported at egress, then the need for
   backpressure is minimized.  There may be no good solution for high
   volumes of multicast traffic if VOQ is used.

   MP2MP LSP differ in that any branch may provide an input, including a
   leaf.  Packets must be replicated onto all other branches.  This
   forwarding is often implemented as multiple P2MP forwarding trees,
   one for each potential input.

2.3.  Packet Rates

   While average packet size of Internet traffic may be large, long
   sequences of small packets have both been predicted in theory and
   observed in practice.  Traffic compression and TCP ACK compression
   can conspire to create long sequences of packets of 40-44 bytes in
   payload length.  If carried over Ethernet, the 64 byte minimum
   payload applies, yielding a packet rate of approximately 150 Mpps
   (million packets per second) for the duration of the burst on a
   nominal 100 Gb/s link.  The peak rate is higher for other
   encapsulations can be as high as 250 Mpps (for example IP or MPLS
   encapsulated using GFP over OTN ODU4).

   It is also possible that the packet rates for a minimum payload size,



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   such as 64 byte (64B) payload for Ethernet, is acceptable, but the
   rate declines for other packet sizes, such as 65B payload.  There are
   other packet rates of interest besides TCP ACK.  For example, a TCP
   ACK carried over an Ethernet PW over MPLS over Ethernet may occupy
   82B or 82B plus an increment of 4B if additional MPLS labels are
   present.

   A graph of packet rate vs. packet size often displays a sawtooth.
   The sawtooth is commonly due to a memory bottleneck and memory
   widths, sometimes internal cache, but often a very wide external
   buffer memory interface.  In some cases it may be due to a fabric
   transfer width.  A fine packing, rounding up to the nearest 8B or 16B
   will result in a fine sawtooth with small degradation for 65B, and
   even less for 82B packets.  A course packing, rounding up to 64B can
   yield a sharper drop in performance for 65B packets, or perhaps more
   important, a larger drop for 82B packets.

   The loss of some TCP ACK packets are not the primary concern when
   such a burst occurs.  When a burst occurs, any other packets,
   regardless of packet length and packet QoS are dropped once on-chip
   input buffers prior to the decision engine are exceeded.  Buffers in
   front of the packet decision engine are often very small or non-
   existent (less than one packet of buffer) causing significant QoS
   agnostic packet drop.

   Internet service providers and content providers generally specify
   full rate forwarding with 40 byte payload packets as a requirement.
   This requirement often can be waived if the provider can be convinced
   that when long sequence of short packets occur no packets will be
   dropped.

   Many equipment suppliers have pointed out that the extra cost in
   designing hardware capable of processing the minimum size packets at
   full line rate is significant for very high speed interfaces.  If
   hardware is not capable of processing the minimum size packets at
   full line rate, then that hardware MUST be capable of handling large
   burst of small packets, a condition which is often observed.  This
   level of performance is necessary to meet Differentiated Services
   [RFC2475] requirements for without it, packets are lost prior to
   inspection of the IP DSCP field [RFC2474] or MPLS TC field [RFC5462].

   With adequate on-chip buffers before the packet decision engine, an
   LSR can absorb a long sequence of short packets.  Even if the output
   is slowed to the point where light congestion occurs, the packets,
   having cleared the decision process, can make use of larger VOQ or
   output side buffers and be dealt with according to configured QoS
   treatment, rather than dropped completely at random.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   These on-chip buffers need not contribute significant delay since
   they are only used when the packet decision engine is unable to keep
   up, not in response to congestion, plus these buffers are quite
   small.  For example, an on-chip buffer capable of handling 4K packets
   of 64 bytes in length, or 256KB, corresponds to 2 msec on a 10 Mb/s
   link and 0.2 usec on a 100 Gb/s link.  If the packet decision engine
   is capable of handling packets at 90% of the full rate for small
   packets, then the maximum added delay is 0.2 msec and 20 nsec
   respectively, and this delay only applies if a 4K burst of short
   packets occurs.  When no burst of short packets was being processed,
   no delay is added.

   Packet rate requirements apply regardless of which network tier
   equipment is deployed in.  Whether deployed in the network core or
   near the network edges, one of the two conditions MUST be met:

   1.  Packets must be processed at full line rate with minimum sized
       packets. -OR-

   2.  Packets must be processed at a rate well under generally accepted
       average packet sizes, with sufficient buffering prior to the
       packet decision engine to accommodate long bursts of small
       packets.

2.4.  MPLS Multipath Techniques

   In any large provider, service providers and content providers, hash
   based multipath techniques are used in the core and in the edge.  In
   many of these providers hash based multipath is also used in the
   larger metro networks.

   The most common multipath techniques are ECMP applied at the IP
   forwarding level, Ethernet LAG with inspection of the IP payload, and
   multipath on links carrying both IP and MPLS, where the IP header is
   inspected below the MPLS label stack.  In most core networks, the
   vast majority of traffic is MPLS encapsulated.

   In order to support an adequately balanced load distribution across
   multiple links, IP header information must be used.  Common practice
   today is to reinspect the IP headers at each LSR and use the label
   stack and IP header information in a hash performed at each LSR.
   Further details are provided in Section 2.4.5.

   The use of this technique is so ubiquitous in provider networks that
   lack of support for multipath makes any product unsuitable for use in
   large core networks.  This will continue to be the case in the near
   future, even as deployment of MPLS entropy label begins to relax the
   core LSR multipath performance requirements given the existing



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   deployed base of edge equipment without the ability to add an entropy
   label.

   A generation of edge equipment supporting the ability to add an MPLS
   entropy label is needed before the performance requirements for core
   LSR can be relaxed.  However, it is likely that two generations of
   deployment in the future will allow core LSR to support full packet
   rate only when a relatively small number of MPLS labels need to be
   inspected before hashing.  For now, don't count on it.

   Common practice today is to reinspect the packet at each LSR and
   information from the packet combined with a hash seed that is
   selected by each LSR.  Where flow labels or entropy labels are used,
   a hash seed must be used when creating these labels.

2.4.1.  Pseudowire Control Word

   Within the core of a network some form of multipath is almost certain
   to be used.  Multipath techniques deployed today are likely to be
   looking beneath the label stack for an opportunity to hash on IP
   addresses.

   A pseudowire encapsulated at a network edge must have a means to
   prevent reordering within the core if the pseudowire will be crossing
   a network core, or any part of a network topology where multipath is
   used (see [RFC4385] and [RFC4928]).

   Not supporting the ability to encapsulate a pseudowire with a control
   word may lock a product out from consideration.  A pseudowire
   capability without control word support might be sufficient for
   applications that are strictly both intra-metro and low bandwidth.
   However a provider with other applications will very likely not
   tolerate having equipment which can only support a subset of their
   pseudowire needs.

2.4.2.  Large Microflows

   Where multipath makes use of a simple hash and simple load balance
   such as modulo or other fixed allocation (see Section 2.4) the
   presence of large microflows that each consumes 10% of the capacity
   of a component link of a potentially congested composite link, one
   such microflow can upset the traffic balance and more than one can in
   effect reduce the effective capacity of the entire composite link by
   more than 10%.

   When even a very small number of large microflows are present, there
   is a significant probability that more than one of these large
   microflows could fall on the same component link.  If the traffic



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   contribution from large microflows is small, the probability for
   three or more large microflows on the same component link drops
   significantly.  Therefore in a network where a significant number of
   parallel 10 Gb/s links exists, even a 1 Gb/s pseudowire or other
   large microflow that could not otherwise be subdivided into smaller
   flows should carry a flow label or entropy label if possible.

   Active management of the hash space to better accommodate large
   microflows has been implemented and deployed in the past, however
   such techniques are out of scope for this document.

2.4.3.  Pseudowire Flow Label

   Unlike a pseudowire control word, a pseudowire flow label [RFC6391],
   is required only for relatively large capacity pseudowires.  There
   are many cases where a pseudowire flow label makes sense.  Any
   service such as a VPN which carries IP traffic within a pseudowire
   can make use of a pseudowire flow label.

   Any pseudowire carried over MPLS which makes use of the pseudowire
   control word and does not carry a flow label is in effect a single
   microflow (in [RFC2475] terms).

2.4.4.  MPLS Entropy Label

   The MPLS entropy label simplifies flow group identification [RFC6790]
   in the network core.  Prior to the MPLS entropy label core LSR needed
   to inspect the entire label stack and often the IP headers to provide
   an adequate distribution of traffic when using multipath techniques
   (see Section 2.4.5).  With the use of MPLS entropy label, a hash can
   be performed closer to network edges, placed in the label stack, and
   used within the network core.

   The MPLS entropy label is capable of avoiding full label stack and
   payload inspection within the core where performance levels are most
   difficult to achieve (see Section 2.3).  The label stack inspection
   can be terminated as soon as the first entropy label is encountered,
   which is generally after a small number of labels are inspected.

   In order to provide these benefits in the core, LSR closer to the
   edge must be capable of adding an entropy label.  This support may
   not be required in the access tier, the tier closest to the customer,
   but is likely to be required in the edge or the border to the network
   core.  LSR peering with external networks will also need to be able
   to add an entropy label.






Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


2.4.5.  Fields Used for Multipath

   The most common multipath techniques are based on a hash over a set
   of fields.  Regardless of whether a hash is used or some other method
   is used, the there is a limited set of fields which can safely be
   used for multipath.

2.4.5.1.  MPLS Fields in Multipath

   If the "outer" or "first" layer of encapsulation is MPLS, then label
   stack entries are used in the hash.  Within a finite amount of time
   (and for small packets arriving at high speed that time can quite
   limited) only a finite number of label entries can be inspected.
   Pipelined or parallel architectures improve this, but the limit is
   still finite.

   The following guidelines are provided for use of MPLS fields in
   multipath load balancing.

   1.  Only the 20 bit label field SHOULD be used.  The TTL field SHOULD
       NOT be used.  The S bit MUST NOT be used.  The TC field (formerly
       EXP) MUST NOT be used.  See below this list for reasons.

   2.  If an ELI label is found, then if the LSR supports entropy label,
       the EL label field in the next label entry (the EL) SHOULD be
       used and label entries below that label SHOULD NOT be used and
       the MPLS payload SHOULD NOT be used.  See below this list for
       reasons.

   3.  Reserved labels (label values 0-15) MUST NOT be used.  In
       particular, GAL and RA MUST NOT be used so that OAM traffic
       follows the same path as payload packets with the same label
       stack.

   4.  The most entropy is generally found in the label stack entries
       near the bottom of the label stack (innermost label, closest to
       S=1 bit).  If the entire label stack cannot be used (or entire
       stack up to an EL), then it is better to use as many labels as
       possible closest to the bottom of stack.

   5.  If no ELI is encountered, and the first nibble of payload
       contains a 4 (IPv4) or 6 (IPv6), an implementation SHOULD support
       the ability to interpret the payload as IPv4 or IPv6 and extract
       and use appropriate fields from the IP headers.  This feature is
       considered a hard requirement by many service providers.  If
       supported, there MUST be a way to disable it (if, for example, PW
       without CW are used).  This ability to disable this feature is
       considered a hard requirement by many service providers.



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


       Therefore an implementation has a very strong incentive to
       support both options.

   6.  A label which is popped at egress (UHP pop) SHOULD NOT be used.
       A label which is popped at the penultimate hop (PHP pop) SHOULD
       be used.

   Apparently some chips have made use of the TC (formerly EXP) bits as
   a source of entropy.  This is very harmful since it will reorder
   Assured Forwarding (AF) traffic [RFC2597] when a subset does not
   conform to the configured rates and is remarked but not dropped at a
   prior LSR.  Traffic which uses MPLS ECN [RFC5129] can also be
   reordered if TC is used for entropy.  Therefore, as stated in the
   guidelines above, the TC field (formerly EXP) MUST NOT be used in
   multipath load balancing as it violates Differentiated Services
   Ordered Aggregate (OA) requirements in these two instances.

   Use of the MPLS label entry S bit would result in putting OAM traffic
   on a different path if the addition of a GAL at the bottom of stack
   removed the S bit from the prior label.

   If an ELI label is found, then if the LSR supports entropy label, the
   EL label field in the next label entry (the EL) SHOULD be used and
   the search for additional entropy within the packet SHOULD be
   terminated.  Failure to terminate the search will impact client
   MPLS-TP LSP carried within server MPLS LSP.  A network operator has
   the option to use administrative attributes as a means to identify
   LSR which do not terminate the entropy search at the first EL.
   Administrative attributes are defined in [RFC3209].  Some
   configuration is required to support this.

   If the label removed by a PHP pop is not used, then for any PW for
   which CW is used, there is no basis for multipath load split.  In
   some networks it is infeasible to put all PW traffic on one component
   link.  Any PW which does not use CW will be improperly split
   regardless of whether the label removed by a PHP pop is used.
   Therefore the PHP pop label SHOULD be used as recommended above.

2.4.5.2.  IP Fields in Multipath

   Inspecting the IP payload provides the most entropy in provider
   networks.  The practice of looking past the bottom of stack label for
   an IP payload is well accepted and documented in [RFC4928] and in
   other RFCs.

   Where IP is mentioned in the document, both IPv4 and IPv6 apply.  All
   LSRs MUST fully support IPv6.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   When information in the IP header is used, the following guidelines
   apply:

   1.  Both the IP source address and IP destination address SHOULD be
       used.  There MAY be an option to reverse the order of these
       addresses, improving the ability to provide symmetric paths in
       some cases.  Many service providers require that both addresses
       be used.

   2.  Implementations SHOULD allow inspection of the IP protocol field
       and use of the UDP or TCP port numbers.  For many service
       providers this feature is considered mandatory, particularly for
       enterprise, data center, or edge equipment.  If this feature is
       provided, it SHOULD be possible to disable use of TCP and UDP
       ports.  Many service providers consider it a hard requirement
       that use of UDP and TCP ports can be disabled.  Therefore there
       is a stong incentive for implementations to provide both options.

   3.  Equipment suppliers MUST NOT make assumptions that because the IP
       version field is equal to 4 (an IPv4 packet) that the IP protocol
       will either be TCP (IP protocol 6) or UDP (IP protocol 17) and
       blindly fetch the data at the offset where the TCP or UDP ports
       would be found.  With IPv6, TCP and UDP port numbers are not at
       fixed offsets.  With IPv4 packets carrying IP options, TCP and
       UDP port numbers are not at fixed offsets.

   4.  The IPv6 header flow field SHOULD be used.  This is the explicit
       purpose of the IPv6 flow field, however observed flow fields
       rarely contains a non-zero value.  Some uses of the flow field
       have been defined such as [RFC6438].  In the absense of MPLS
       encapsulation, the IPv6 flow field can serve a role equivalent to
       entropy label.

   5.  Support other protocols that share a common Layer-4 header such
       as RTP, UDP-lite, SCTP and DCCP SHOULD be provided, particularly
       for edge or access equipment where additional entropy may be
       needed.  Equipment SHOULD also use RTP, UDP-lite, SCTP and DCCP
       headers when creating an entropy label.

   6.  The following IP header fields should not or must not be used:

       A.  Similar to avoiding TC in MPLS, the IP DSCP, and ECN bits
           MUST NOT be used.

       B.  The IPv4 TTL or IPv6 Hop Count SHOULD NOT be used.

       C.  Note that the IP TOS field was deprecated ([RFC0791] was
           updated by [RFC2474]).  No part of the IP DSCP field can be



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


           used (formerly IP PREC and IP TOS bits).

   7.  Some IP encapsulations support tunneling, such as IP-in-IP, GRE,
       L2TPv3, and IPSEC.  These provide a greater source of entropy
       which some provider networks carrying large amounts of tunneled
       traffic may need.  The use of tunneling header information is out
       of scope for this document.

   This document makes the following recommendations.  These
   recommendations are not required to claim compliance to any existing
   RFC therefore implementors are free to ignore them, but due to
   service provider requirements may be doing so at their own peril.
   The use of IP addresses MUST be supported and TCP and UDP ports
   (conditional on the protocol field and properly located) MUST be
   supported.  The ability to disable use of UDP and TCP ports MUST be
   available.  Though potentially very useful in some networks, it is
   uncommon to support using payloads of tunneling protocols carried
   over IP.  Though the use of tunneling protocol header information is
   out of scope for this document, it is not discouraged.

2.4.5.3.  Fields Used in Flow Label

   The ingress to a pseudowire (PW) can extract information from the
   payload being encapsulated to create a flow label.  [RFC6391]
   references IP carried in Ethernet as an example.  The Native Service
   Processing (NSP) function defined in [RFC3985] differs with
   pseudowire type.  It is in the NSP function where information for a
   specific type of PW can be extracted for use in a flow label.  Which
   fields to use for any given PW NSP is out of scope for this document.

2.4.5.4.  Fields Used in Entropy Label

   An entropy label is added at the ingress to an LSP.  The payload
   being encapsulated is most often MPLS, a PW, or IP.  The payload type
   is identified by the layer-2 encapsulation (Ethernet, GFP, POS, etc).

   If the payload is MPLS, then the information used to create an
   entropy label is the same information used for local load balancing
   (see Section 2.4.5.1).  This information MUST be extracted for use in
   generating an entropy label even if the LSR local egress interface is
   not a multipath.

   Of the non-MPLS payload types, only payloads that are forwarded are
   of interest.  For example, ARP is not forwarded and CNLP (used only
   for ISIS) is not forwarded.

   The non-MPLS payload type of greatest interest are IPv4 and IPv6.
   The guidelines in Section 2.4.5.2 apply to fields used to create and



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   entropy label.

   The IP tunneling protocols mentioned in Section 2.4.5.2 may be more
   applicable to generation of an entropy label at edge or access where
   deep packet inspection is practical due to lower interface speeds
   than in the core where deep packet inspection may be impractical.

2.5.  MPLS-TP and UHP

   MPLS-TP introduces forwarding demands that will be extremely
   difficult to meet in a core network.  Most troublesome is the
   requirement for Ultimate Hop Popping (UHP, the opposite of
   Penultimate Hop Popping or PHP).  Using UHP opens the possibility of
   one or more MPLS pop operation plus an MPLS swap operation for each
   packet.  The potential for multiple lookups and multiple counter
   instances per packet exists.

   As networks grow and tunneling of LDP LSPs into RSVP-TE LSPs is used,
   and/or RSVP-TE hierarchy is used, the requirement to perform one or
   two or more MPLS pop operations plus a MPLS swap operation (and
   possibly a push or two) increases.  If MPLS-TP LM (link monitoring)
   OAM is enabled at each layer, then a packet and byte count MUST be
   maintained for each pop and swap operation so as to offer OAM for
   each layer.

2.6.  Local Delivery of Packets

   There are a number of situations in which packets are destined to a
   local address or where a return packet must be generated.  There is a
   need to mitigate the potential for outage as a result of either
   attacks on network infrastructure, or in some cases unintentional
   misconfiguration resulting in processor overload.  Some hardware
   assistance is needed for all traffic destined to the general purpose
   CPU that is used in MPLS control protocol processing or network
   management protocol processing and in most cases to other general
   purpose CPUs residing on an LSR.  This is due to the ease of
   overwhelming such a processor with traffic arriving on LSR high speed
   interfaces, whether the traffic is malicious or not.

   Denial of service (DoS) protection is an area requiring hardware
   support that is often overlooked or inadequately considered.
   Hardware assist is also needed for OAM, particularly the more
   demanding MPLS-TP OAM.

2.6.1.  DoS Protection

   Modern equipment supports a number of control plane and management
   plane protocols.  Generally no single means of protecting network



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   equipment from denial of service (DoS) attacks is sufficient,
   particularly for high speed interfaces.  This problem is not specific
   to MPLS, but is a topic that cannot be ignored when implementing or
   evaluating MPLS implementations.

   Two types of protections are often cited as primary means of
   protecting against attacks of all kinds.

   Isolated Control/Management Traffic
       Control and Management traffic can be carried out-of-band (OOB),
       meaning not intermixed with payload.  For MPLS use of G-ACh and
       GAL to carry control and management traffic provides a means of
       isolation from potentially malicious payload.  Used alone, the
       compromise of a single node, including a small computer at a
       network operations center, could compromise an entire network.
       Implementations which send all G-ACh/GAL traffic directly to a
       routing engine CPU are subject to DoS attack as a result of such
       a compromise.

   Cryptographic Authentication
       Cryptographic authentication can very effectively prevent
       malicious injection of control or management traffic.
       Cryptographic authentication can is some circumstances be subject
       to DoS attack by overwhelming the capacity of the decryption with
       a high volume of malicious traffic.  For very low speed
       interfaces, cryptographic authentication can be performed by the
       general purpose CPU used as a routing engine.  For all other
       cases, cryptographic hardware may be needed.  For very high speed
       interfaces, even cryptographic hardware can be overwhelmed.

   Some control and management protocols are often carried with payload
   traffic.  This is commonly the case with BGP, T-LDP, and SNMP.  It is
   often the case with RSVP-TE.  Even when carried over G-ACh/GAL
   additional measures can reduce the potential for a minor breach to be
   leveraged to a full network attack.

   Some of the additional protections are supported by hardware packet
   filtering.

   GTSM
       [RFC5082] defines a mechanism that uses the IPv4 TTL or IPv6 Hop
       Limit fields to insure control traffic that can only originate
       from an immediate neighbor is not forged and originating from a
       distant source.  GTSM can be applies to many control protocols
       which are routable, for example LDP [RFC6720].






Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   IP Filtering
       At the very minimum, packet filtering plus classification and use
       of multiple queues supporting rate limiting is needed for traffic
       that could potentially be sent to a general purpose CPU used as a
       routing engine.  The first level of filtering only allows
       connections to be initiated from specific IP prefixes to specific
       destination ports and then preferably passes traffic directly to
       a cryptographic engine and/or rate limits.  The second level of
       filtering passes connected traffic, such as TCP connections
       having received at least one authenticated SYN or having been
       locally initiated.  The second level of filtering only passes
       traffic to specific address and port pairs to be checked for
       cryptographic authentication.

   The cryptographic authentication is generally the last resort in DoS
   attack mitigation.  If a packet must be first sent to a general
   purpose CPU, then sent to a cryptographic engine, a DoS attack is
   possible on high speed interfaces.  Only where hardware can identify
   a signature and the portion of packet covered by the signature is
   cryptographic authentication highly beneficial in protecting against
   DoS attacks.

   For chips supporting multiple 100 Gb/s interfaces, only a very large
   number of parallel cryptographic engines can provide the processing
   capacity to handle a large scale DoS or distributed DoS (DDoS)
   attack.  For many forwarding chips this much processing power
   requires significant chip real estate and power, and therefore
   reduces system space and power density.  For this reason,
   cryptographic authentication is not considered a viable first line of
   defense.

   For some networks the first line of defense is some means of
   supporting OOB control and management traffic.  In the past this OOB
   channel migh make use of overhead bits in SONET or OTN or a dedicated
   DWDM wavelength.  G-ACh and GAL provide an alternative OOB mechanism
   which is independent of underlying layers.  In other networks,
   including most IP/MPLS networks, perimeter filtering serves a similar
   purpose, though less effective without extreme vigilance.

   A second line of defense is filtering, including GTSM.  For protocols
   such as EBGP, GTSM and other filtering is often the first line of
   defense.  Cryptographic authentication is usually the last line of
   defense and insufficient by itself to mitigate DoS or DDoS attacks.

2.6.2.  MPLS OAM

   [RFC4377] defines requirements for MPLS OAM that predate MPLS-TP.
   [RFC4379] defines what is commonly referred to as LSP Ping and LSP



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Traceroute.  [RFC4379] is updated by [RFC6424] supporting MPLS
   tunnels and stitched LSP and P2MP LSP.  [RFC4379] is updated by
   [RFC6425] supporting P2MP LSP.  [RFC4379] is updated by [RFC6426] to
   support MPLS-TP connectivity verification (CV) and route tracing.

   [RFC4950] extends the ICMP format to support TTL expiration that may
   occur when using IP traceroute within an MPLS tunnel.  The ICMP
   message generation can be implemented in forwarding hardware, but if
   sent to a general purpose CPU must be rate limited to avoid a
   potential denial or service (DoS) attack.

   [RFC5880] defines Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), a
   protocol intended to detect faults in the bidirectional path between
   two forwarding engines.  [RFC5884] and [RFC5885] define BFD for MPLS.
   BFD can provide failure detection on any kind of path between
   systems, including direct physical links, virtual circuits, tunnels,
   MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs), multihop routed paths, and
   unidirectional links as long as there is some return path.

   The processing requirements for BFD are less than for LSP Ping,
   making BFD somewhat better suited for relatively high rate proactive
   monitoring.  BFD does not verify that the data plane against the
   control plane, where LSP Ping does.  LSP Ping somewhat better suited
   for on-demand monitoring including relatively low rate periodic
   verification of data plane and as a diagnostic tool.

   Hardware assistance is often provided for BFD response where BFD
   setup or parameter change is not involved and may be necessary for
   relatively high rate proactive monitoring.  If both BFD and LSP Ping
   are recognized in filtering prior to passing traffic to a general
   purpose CPU, appropriate DoS protection can be applied (see
   Section 2.6.1).  Failure to recognize BFD and LSP Ping and at least
   rate limit creates the potential for misconfiguration to cause
   outages rather than cause errors in the misconfigured OAM.

2.6.3.  Pseudowire OAM

   Pseudowire OAM makes use of the control channel provided by Virtual
   Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085].  VCCV makes use
   of the Pseudowire Control Word.  BFD support over VCCV is defined by
   [RFC5885].  [RFC5885] is updated by [RFC6478] in support of static
   pseudowires.  [RFC4379] is updated by [RFC6829] supporting LSP Ping
   for Pseudowire FEC advertised over IPv6.

   G-ACh/GAL (defined in [RFC5586]) is the preferred MPLS-TP OAM control
   channel and applies to any MPLS-TP end points, including Pseudowire.
   See Section 2.6.4 for an overview of MPLS-TP OAM.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


2.6.4.  MPLS-TP OAM

   [RFC6669] summarizes the MPLS-TP OAM toolset, the set of protocols
   supporting the MPLS-TP OAM requirements specified in [RFC5860] and
   supported by the MPLS-TP OAM framework defined in [RFC6371].

   The MPLS-TP OAM toolset includes:

   CC-CV
       [RFC6428] defines BFD extensions to support proactive
       Connectivity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-CV)
       applications.  [RFC6426] provides LSP ping extensions that are
       used to implement on-demand connectivity verification.

   RDI
       Remote Defect Indication (RDI) is triggered by failure of
       proactive CC-CV, which is BFD based.  For fast RDI initiation,
       RDI SHOULD be initiated and handled by hardware if BFD is handled
       in forwarding hardware.  [RFC6428] provides an extension for BFD
       that includes the RDI indication in the BFD format and a
       specification of how this indication is to be used.

   Route Tracing
       [RFC6426] specifies that the LSP ping enhancements for MPLS-TP
       on-demand connectivity verification include information on the
       use of LSP ping for route tracing of an MPLS-TP path.

   Alarm Reporting
       [RFC6427] describes the details of a new protocol supporting
       Alarm Indication Signal (AIS), Link Down Indication, and fault
       management.  Failure to support this functionality in forwarding
       hardware can potentially result in failure to meet protection
       recovery time requirements and is therefore strongly recommended.

   Lock Instruct
       Lock instruct is initiated on-demand and therefore need not be
       implemented in forwarding hardware.  [RFC6435] defines a lock
       instruct protocol.

   Lock Reporting
       [RFC6427] covers lock reporting.  Lock reporting need not be
       implemented in forwarding hardware.

   Diagnostic
       [RFC6435] defines protocol support for loopback.  Loopback
       initiation is on-demand and therefore need not be implemented in
       forwarding hardware.  Loopback of packet traffic SHOULD be
       implemented in forwarding hardware on high speed interfaces.



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Packet Loss and Delay Measurement
       [RFC6374] and [RFC6375] define a protocol and profile for packet
       loss measurement (LM) and delay measurement (DM).  LM requires a
       very accurate capture and insertion of packet and byte counters
       when a packet is transmitted and capture of packet and byte
       counters when a packet is received.  This capture and insertion
       MUST be implemented in forwarding hardware for LM OAM if high
       accuracy is needed.  DM requires very accurate capture and
       insertion of a timestamp on transmission and capture of timestamp
       when a packet is received.  This timestamp capture and insertion
       MUST be implemented in forwarding hardware for DM OAM if high
       accuracy is needed.

   See Section 2.6.2 for discussion of hardware support necessary for
   BFD and LSP Ping.

   CC-CV and alarm reporting is tied to protection and therefore SHOULD
   be supported in forwarding hardware in order to provide protection
   for a large number of affected LSP within target response intervals.
   Since CC-CV is supported by BFD, for MPLS-TP providing hardware
   assistance for BFD processing helps insure that protection recovery
   time requirements can be met even for faults affecting a large number
   of LSP.

2.6.5.  MPLS OAM and Layer-2 OAM Interworking

   [RFC6670] provides the reasons for selecting a single MPLS-TP OAM
   solution and examines the consequences were ITU-T to develop a second
   OAM solution that is based on Ethernet encodings and mechanisms.

   [RFC6310] and [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk] specifies the mapping
   of defect states between many types of hardware Attachment Circuits
   (ACs) and associated Pseudowires (PWs).  This functionality SHOULD be
   supported in forwarding hardware.

   It is beneficial if an MPLS OAM implementation can interwork with the
   underlying server layer and provide a means to interwork with a
   client layer.  For example, [RFC6427] specifies an inter-layer
   propogation of AIS and LDI from MPLS server layer to client MPLS
   layers.  Where the server layer is a Layer-2, such as Ethernet, PPP
   over SONET/SDH, or GFP over OTN, interwork among layers is also
   beneficial.  For high speed interfaces, supporting this interworking
   in forwarding hardware helps insure that protection based on this
   interworking can meet recovery time requirements even for faults
   affecting a large number of LSP.






Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


2.6.6.  Extent of OAM Support by Hardware

   Where certain requirements must be met, such as relatively high CC-CV
   rates and a large number of interfaces, or strict protection recovery
   time requirements and a moderate number of affected LSP, some OAM
   functionality must be supported by forwarding hardware.  In other
   cases, such as highly accurate LM and DM OAM or strict protection
   recovery time requirements with a large number of affected LSP, OAM
   functionality must be entirely implemented in forwarding hardware.

   Where possible, implementation in forwarding hardware should be in
   programmable hardware such that if standards are later changed or
   extended these changes are likely to be accommodated with hardware
   reprogramming rather than replacement.

   For some functionality there is a strong case for an implementation
   in dedicated forwarding hardware.  Examples include packet and byte
   counters needed for LM OAM as well as needed for management
   protocols.  Similarly the capture and insertion of packet and byte
   counts or timestamps needed for transmitted LM or DM or time
   synchronization packets MUST be implemented in forwarding hardware if
   high accuracy is required.

   For some functions there is a strong case to provide limited support
   in forwarding hardware but may make use of an external general
   purpose processor if performance criteria can be met.  For example
   origination of RDI triggered by CC-CV, response to RDI, and PSC
   functionality may be supported by hardware, but expansion to a large
   number of client LSP and transmission of AIS or RDI to the client LSP
   may occur in a general purpose processor.  Some forwarding hardware
   supports one or more on-chip general purpose processors which may be
   well suited for such a role.

   The customer (system supplier or provider) should not dictate design,
   but should independently validate target functionality and
   performance.  However, it is not uncommon for service providers and
   system implementors to insist on reviewing design details (under NDA)
   due to past experiences with suppliers and to reject suppliers who
   are unwilling to provide details.

2.7.  Number and Size of Flows

   Service provider networks may carry up to hundreds of millions of
   flows on 10 Gb/s links.  Most flows are very short lived, many under
   a second.  A subset of the flows are low capacity and somewhat long
   lived.  When Internet traffic dominates capacity a very small subset
   of flows are high capacity and/or very long lived.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Two types of limitations with regard to number and size of flows have
   been observed.

   1.  Some hardware cannot handle some very large flows because of
       internal paths which are limited, such as per packet backplane
       paths or paths internal or external to chips such as buffer
       memory paths.  Such designs can handle aggregates of smaller
       flows.  Some hardware with acknowledged limitations has been
       successfully deployed but may be increasingly problematic if the
       capacity of large microflows in deployed networks continues to
       grow.

   2.  Some hardware approaches cannot handle a large number of flows,
       or a large number of large flows due to attempting to count per
       flow, rather than deal with aggregates of flows.  Hash techniques
       scale with regard to number of flows due to a fixed hash size
       with many flows falling into the same hash bucket.  Techniques
       that identify individual flows have been implemented but have
       never successfully deployed for Internet traffic.


3.  Questions for Suppliers

   The following questions should be asked of a supplier.  These
   questions are grouped into broad categories.  The questions
   themselves are intended to be an open ended question to the supplier.
   The tests in Section 4 are intended to verify whether the supplier
   disclosed any compliance or performance limitations completely and
   accurately.

3.1.  Basic Compliance

   Q#1   Can the implementation forward packets with an arbitrarily
         large stack depth?  What limitations exist, and under what
         circumstances do further limitations come into play (such as
         high packet rate or specific features enabled or specific types
         of packet processing)?  See Section 2.1.

   Q#2   Is the entire set of basic MPLS functionality described in
         Section 2.1 supported?

   Q#3   Are the set of MPLS reserved labels handled correctly and with
         adequate performance?  See Section 2.1.1.

   Q#4   Are mappings of label value and TC to PHB handled correctly,
         including RFC3270 L-LSP mappings and RFC4124 CT mappings to
         PHB?  See Section 2.1.2.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Q#5   Is time synchronization adequately supported in forwarding
         hardware?

         A.  Are both PTP and NTP formats supported?

         B.  Is the accuracy of timestamp insertion and incoming
             stamping sufficient?

         See Section 2.1.3.

   Q#6   Is link bundling supported?

         A.  Can LSP be pinned to specific components?

         B.  Is the "all-ones" component link supported?

         See Section 2.1.5.

   Q#7   Is MPLS hierarchy supported?

         A.  Are both PHP and UHP supported?  What limitations exist on
             the number of pop operations with UHP?

         B.  Are the pipe, short-pipe, and uniform models supported?
             Are TTL and TC values updated correctly at egress where
             applicable?

         See Section 2.1.6

   Q#8   Are pseudowire sequence numbers handled correctly?  See
         Section 2.1.8.1.

   Q#9   Is VPN LER functionality handled correctly and without
         performance issues?  See Section 2.1.9.

   Q#10  Is MPLS multicast (P2MP and MP2MP) handled correctly?

         A.  Are packets dropped on uncongested outputs if some outputs
             are congested?

         B.  Is performance limited in high fanout situations?

         See Section 2.2.








Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


3.2.  Basic Performance

   Q#11  Can very small packets be forwarded at full line rate on all
         interfaces indefinitely?  What limitations exist, and under
         what circumstances do further limitations come into play (such
         as specific features enabled or specific types of packet
         processing)?

   Q#12  Customers must decide whether to relax the prior requirement
         and to what extent.  If the answer to the prior question
         indicates that limitations exist, then:

         A.  What is the smallest packet size where full line rate
             forwarding can be supported?

         B.  What is the longest burst of full rate small packets that
             can be supported?

         Specify circumstances (such as specific features enabled or
         specific types of packet processing) often impact these rates
         and burst sizes.

   Q#13  How many pop operations can be supported along with a swap
         operation at full line rate while maintaining per LSP packet
         and byte counts for each pop and swap?  This requirement is
         particularly relevant for MPLS-TP.

   Q#14  How many label push operations can be supported.  While this
         limitation is rarely an issue, it applies to both PHP and UHP,
         unlike the pop limit which applies to UHP.

   Q#15  For a worst case where all packets arrive on one LSP, what is
         the counter overflow time?  Are any means provided to avoid
         polling all counters at short intervals?  This applies to both
         MPLS and MPLS-TP.

3.3.  Multipath Capabilities and Performance

   Multipath capabilities and performance do not apply to MPLS-TP but
   apply to MPLS and apply if MPLS-TP is carried in MPLS.

   Q#16  How are large microflows accommodated?  Is there active
         management of the hash space mapping to output ports?  See
         Section 2.4.2.







Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Q#17  How many MPLS labels can be included in a hash based on the
         MPLS label stack?

   Q#18  Is packet rate performance decreased beyond some number of
         labels?

   Q#19  Can the IP header and payload information below the MPLS stack
         be used in the hash?  If so, which IP fields, payload types and
         payload fields are supported?

   Q#20  At what maximum MPLS label stack depth can Bottom of Stack and
         an IP header appear without impacting packet rate performance?

   Q#21  Are reserved labels excluded from the label stack hash?  See
         Section 2.4.5.1.

   Q#22  How is multipath performance affected by very large flows or an
         extremely large number of flows, or by very short lived flows?
         See Section 2.7.

3.4.  Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance

   Q#23  Is the pseudowire control word supported?

   Q#24  What is the maximum rate of pseudowire encapsulation and
         decapsulation?  Apply the same questions as in Base Performance
         for any packet based pseudowire such as IP VPN or Ethernet.

   Q#25  Does inclusion of a pseudowire control word impact performance?

   Q#26  Are flow labels supported?

   Q#27  If so, what fields are hashed on for the flow label for
         different types of pseudowires?

   Q#28  Does inclusion of a flow label impact performance?

3.5.  Entropy Label Support and Performance

   Q#29  Can an entropy label be added when acting as in ingress LER and
         can it be removed when acting as an egress LER?

   Q#30  If so, what fields are hashed on for the entropy label?

   Q#31  Does adding or removing an entropy label impact packet rate
         performance?





Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Q#32  Can an entropy label be detected in the label stack, used in
         the hash, and properly terminate the search for further
         information to hash on?

   Q#33  Does using an entropy label have any negative impact on
         performance?  It should have no impact or a positive impact.

3.6.  DoS Protection

   Q#34  For each control and management plane protocol in use, what
         measures are taken to provide DoS attack hardenning?

   Q#35  Have DoS attack tests been performed?

   Q#36  Can compromise of an internal computer on a management subnet
         be leveraged for any form of attack including DoS attack?

3.7.  OAM Capabilities and Performance

   Q#37  What OAM proactive and on-demand mechanisms are supported?

   Q#38  What performance limits exist under high proactive monitoring
         rates?

   Q#39  Can excessively high proactive monitoring rates impact control
         plane performance or cause control plane instability?

   Q#40  Ask the prior questions for each of the following.

         A.  MPLS OAM

         B.  Pseudowire OAM

         C.  MPLS-TP OAM

         D.  Layer-2 OAM Interworking

         See Section 2.6.2.


4.  Forwarding Compliance and Performance Testing

   Packet rate performance of equipment supporting a large number of 10
   Gb/s or 100 Gb/s links is not possible using desktop computers or
   workstations.  The use of high end workstations as a source of test
   traffic was barely viable 20 years ago, but is no longer at all
   viable.  Though custom microcode has been used on specialized router
   forwarding cards to serve the purpose of generating test traffic and



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   measuring it, for the most part performance testing will require
   specialized test equipment.  There are multiple sources of suitable
   equipment.

   The set of tests listed here do not correspond one-to-one to the set
   of questions in Section 3.  The same categorization is used and these
   tests largely serve to validate answers provided to the prior
   questions, and can also provide answers where a supplier is unwilling
   to disclose compliance or performance.

   Performance testing is the domain of the IETF Benchmark Methodology
   Working Group (BMWG).  Below are brief descriptions of conformance
   and performance tests.  Some very basic tests are specified in
   [RFC5695] which partially cover only the basic performance test T#3.

   The following tests should be performed by the systems designer, or
   deployer, or performed by the supplier on their behalf if it is not
   practical for the potential customer to perform the tests directly.
   These tests are grouped into broad categories.

   The tests in Section 4.1 should be repeated under various conditions
   to retest basic performance when critical capabilities are enabled.
   Complete repetition of the performance tests enabling each capability
   and combinations of capabilities would be very time intensive,
   therefore a reduced set of performance tests can be used to gauge the
   impact of enabling specific capabilities.

4.1.  Basic Compliance

   T#1  Test forwarding at a high rate for packets with varying number
        of label entries.  While packets with more than a dozen label
        entries are unlikely to be used in any practical scenario today,
        it is useful to know if limitations exists.

   T#2  For each of the questions listed under "Basic Compliance" in
        Section 3, verify the claimed compliance.  For any functionality
        considered critical to a deployment, where applicable
        performance using each capability under load should be verified
        in addition to basic compliance.

4.2.  Basic Performance

   T#3  Test packet forwarding at full line rate with small packets.
        See [RFC5695].  The most likely case to fail is the smallest
        packet size.  Also test with packet sizes in four byte
        increments ranging from payload sizes or 40 to 128 bytes.





Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 38]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   T#4  If the prior tests did not succeed for all packet sizes, then
        perform the following tests.

        A.  Increase the packet size by 4 bytes until a size is found
            that can be forwarded at full rate.

        B.  Inject bursts of consecutive small packets into a stream of
            larger packets.  Allow some time for recovery between
            bursts.  Increase the number of packets in the burst until
            packets are dropped.

   T#5  Send test traffic where a swap operation is required.  Also set
        up multiple LSP carried over other LSP where the device under
        test (DUT) is the egress of these LSP.  Create test packets such
        that the swap operation is performed after pop operations,
        increasing the number of pop operations until forwarding of
        small packets at full line rate can no longer be supported.
        Also check to see how many pop operations can be supported
        before the full set of counters can no longer be maintained.
        This requirement is particularly relevant for MPLS-TP.

   T#6  Send all traffic on one LSP and see if the counters become
        inaccurate.  Often counters on silicon are much smaller than the
        64 bit packet and byte counters in IETF MIB.  System developers
        should consider what counter polling rate is necessary to
        maintain accurate counters and whether those polling rates are
        practical.  Relevant MIBs for MPLS are discussed in [RFC4221]
        and [RFC6639].

4.3.  Multipath Capabilities and Performance

   Multipath capabilities do not apply to MPLS-TP but apply to MPLS and
   apply if MPLS-TP is carried in MPLS.

   T#7   Send traffic at a rate well exceeding the capacity of a single
         multipath component link, and where entropy exists only below
         the top of stack.  If only the top label is used this test will
         fail immediately.

   T#8   Move the labels with entropy down in the stack until either the
         full forwarding rate can no longer be supported or most or all
         packets try to use the same component link.

   T#9   Repeat the two tests above with the entropy contained in IP
         headers or IP payload fields below the label stack rather than
         in the label stack.  Test with the set of IP headers or IP
         payload fields considered relevant to the deployment or to the
         target market.



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 39]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   T#10  Determine whether traffic that contains a pseudowire control
         word is interpreted as IP traffic.  Information in the payload
         MUST NOT be used in the load balancing if the first nibble of
         the packet is not 4 or 6 (IPv4 or IPv6).

   T#11  Determine whether reserved labels are excluded from the label
         stack hash.  They MUST be excluded.

   T#12  Perform testing in the presence of combinations of:

         A.  Very large microflows.

         B.  Relatively short lived high capacity flows.

         C.  Extremely large numbers of flows.

         D.  Very short lived small flows.

4.4.  Pseudowire Capabilities and Performance

   T#13  Ensure that pseudowire can be set up with a pseudowire label
         and pseudowire control word added at ingress and the pseudowire
         label and pseudowire control word removed at egress.

   T#14  For pseudowire that contains variable length payload packets,
         repeat performance tests listed under "Basic Performance" for
         pseudowire ingress and egress functions.

   T#15  Repeat pseudowire performance tests with and without a
         pseudowire control word.

   T#16  Determine whether pseudowire can be set up with a pseudowire
         label, flow label, and pseudowire control word added at ingress
         and the pseudowire label, flow label, and pseudowire control
         word removed at egress.

   T#17  Determine which payload fields are used to create the flow
         label and whether the set of fields and algorithm provide
         sufficient entropy for load balancing.

   T#18  Repeat pseudowire performance tests with flow labels included.

4.5.  Entropy Label Support and Performance








Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 40]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   T#19  Determine whether entropy labels can be added at ingress and
         removed at egress.

   T#20  Determine which fields are used to create an entropy label.
         Labels further down in the stack, including entropy labels
         further down and IP headers or IP payload fields where
         applicable should be used.  Determine whether the set of fields
         and algorithm provide sufficient entropy for load balancing.

   T#21  Repeat performance tests under "Basic Performance" when entropy
         labels are used, where ingress or egress is the device under
         test (DUT).

   T#22  Determine whether an ELI is detected when acting as a midpoint
         LSR and whether the search for further information on which to
         base the load balancing is used.  Information below the entropy
         label SHOULD NOT be used.

   T#23  Ensure that the entropy label indicator and entropy label (ELI
         and EL) are removed from the label stack during UHP and PHP
         operations.

   T#24  Insure that operations on the TC field when adding and removing
         entropy label are correctly carried out.  If TC is changed
         during a swap operation, the ability to transfer that change
         MUST be provided.  The ability to suppress the transfer of TC
         MUST also be provided.  See "pipe", "short pipe", and "uniform"
         models in [RFC3443].

   T#25  Repeat performance tests for midpoint LSR with entropy labels
         found at various label stack depths.

4.6.  DoS Protection

   T#26  Actively attack LSR under high protocol churn load and
         determine control plane performance impact or successful DoS
         under test conditions.  Specifically test for the following.

         A.  TCP SYN attack against control plane and management plane
             protocols using TCP, including CLI access (typically SSH
             protected login), NETCONF, etc.

         B.  High traffic volume attack against control plane and
             management plane protocols not using TCP.

         C.  Attacks which can be performed from a compromised
             management subnet computer, but not one with authentication
             keys.



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 41]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


         D.  Attacks which can be performed from a compromised peer
             within the control plane (internal domain and external
             domain).  Assume that per peering keys and per router ID
             keys rather than network wide keys are in use.

         See Section 2.6.1.

4.7.  OAM Capabilities and Performance

   T#27  Determine maximum sustainable rates of BFD traffic.  If BFD
         requires CPU intervention, determine both maximum rates and CPU
         loading when multiple interfaces are active.

   T#28  Verify LSP Ping and LSP Traceroute capability.

   T#29  Determine maximum rates of MPLS-TP CC-CV traffic.  If CC-CV
         requires CPU intervention, determine both maximum rates and CPU
         loading when multiple interfaces are active.

   T#30  Determine MPLS-TP DM precision.

   T#31  Determine MPLS-TP LM accuracy.

   T#32  Verify MPLS-TP AIS/RDI and PSC functionality, protection speed,
         and AIS/RDI notification speed when a large number of
         Management Entities (ME) must be notified with AIS/RDI.


5.  Acknowledgements

   Numerous very useful comments have been received in private email.
   Some of these contributions are acknowledged here, approximately in
   chronologic order.

   Paul Doolan provided a brief review resulting in a number of
   clarifications, most notably regarding on-chip vs. system buffering,
   100 Gb/s link speed assumptions in the 150 Mpps figure, and handling
   of large microflows.  Pablo Frank reminded us of the sawtooth effect
   in PPS vs. packet size graphs, prompting the addition of a few
   paragraphs on this.  Comments from Lou Berger at IETF-85 prompted the
   addition of Section 2.7.

   Valuable comments were received on the BMWG mailing list.  Jay
   Karthik pointed out testing methodology hints that after discussion
   were deemed out of scope and were removed.

   Nabil Bitar pointed out the need to cover QoS (Differentiated
   Services), MPLS multicast (P2MP and MP2MP), and MPLS-TP OAM.  Nabil



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 42]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   also provided a number of clarifications to the questions and tests
   in Section 3 and Section 4.

   Gregory Mirsky and Thomas Beckhaus provided useful comments during
   the MPLS RT review.

   Tal Mizrahi provided comments that prompted clarifications regarding
   timestamp processing, local delivery of packets, and the need for
   hardware assistance in processing OAM traffic.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


7.  Security Considerations

   This document reviews forwarding behavior specified elsewhere and
   points out compliance and performance requirements.  As such it
   introduces no new security requirements or concerns.

   Knowledge of potential performance shortcomings may serve to help new
   implementations avoid pitfalls.  It is unlikely that such knowledge
   could be the basis of new denial of service as these pitfalls are
   already widely known in the service provider community and among
   leading equipment suppliers.  In practice extreme data and packet
   rate are needed to affect existing equipment and networks that may be
   still vulnerable due to failure to implement adequate protection and
   make this type of denial of service unlikely and make undetectable
   denial of service of this type impossible.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC3209]  Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
              and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
              Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 43]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
              P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
              Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
              Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.

   [RFC3443]  Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
              in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
              RFC 3443, January 2003.

   [RFC4090]  Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
              Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090,
              May 2005.

   [RFC4182]  Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
              Explicit NULL", RFC 4182, September 2005.

   [RFC4201]  Kompella, K., Rekhter, Y., and L. Berger, "Link Bundling
              in MPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4201, October 2005.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC5129]  Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
              Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [RFC6391]  Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
              J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
              over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391,
              November 2011.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, November 2012.

8.2.  Informative References

   [ACK-compression]
              "Observations and Dynamics of a Congestion Control
              Algorithm: The Effects of Two-Way Traffic", Proc. ACM
              SIGCOMM, ACM Computer Communications Review (CCR) Vol 21,
              No 4, 1991, pp.133-147., 1991.

   [ATM-EPD-and-PPD]
              "Dynamics of TCP Traffic over ATM Networks", IEEE Journal



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 44]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


              of Special Areas of Communication Vol 13 No 4, May 1995,
              pp. 633-641., May 1995.

   [I-D.ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk]
              Mohan, D., Bitar, N., and A. Sajassi, "MPLS and Ethernet
              OAM Interworking", draft-ietf-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-07
              (work in progress), January 2013.

   [I-D.ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls]
              Davari, S., Oren, A., Bhatia, M., Roberts, P., and L.
              Montini, "Transporting Timing messages over MPLS
              Networks", draft-ietf-tictoc-1588overmpls-04 (work in
              progress), February 2013.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC2597]  Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W., and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3168]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
              of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
              RFC 3168, September 2001.

   [RFC3429]  Ohta, H., "Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for
              Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS)
              Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions", RFC 3429,
              November 2002.

   [RFC3471]  Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
              January 2003.

   [RFC3985]  Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
              Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 45]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   [RFC4110]  Callon, R. and M. Suzuki, "A Framework for Layer 3
              Provider-Provisioned Virtual Private Networks (PPVPNs)",
              RFC 4110, July 2005.

   [RFC4124]  Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
              Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
              June 2005.

   [RFC4206]  Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
              Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
              (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.

   [RFC4221]  Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview", RFC 4221,
              November 2005.

   [RFC4377]  Nadeau, T., Morrow, M., Swallow, G., Allan, D., and S.
              Matsushima, "Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements
              for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks",
              RFC 4377, February 2006.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4664]  Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
              Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.

   [RFC4875]  Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
              "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
              Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.

   [RFC4928]  Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
              Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
              RFC 4928, June 2007.

   [RFC4950]  Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP
              Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950,
              August 2007.

   [RFC5036]  Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
              Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

   [RFC5082]  Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
              Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
              (GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 46]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   [RFC5085]  Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
              Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
              Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.

   [RFC5317]  Bryant, S. and L. Andersson, "Joint Working Team (JWT)
              Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a
              Transport Profile", RFC 5317, February 2009.

   [RFC5332]  Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
              Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.

   [RFC5462]  Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
              Class" Field", RFC 5462, February 2009.

   [RFC5695]  Akhter, A., Asati, R., and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding
              Benchmarking Methodology for IP Flows", RFC 5695,
              November 2009.

   [RFC5860]  Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
              Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.

   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
              (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.

   [RFC5884]  Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
              "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
              Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.

   [RFC5885]  Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Bidirectional Forwarding
              Detection (BFD) for the Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
              Connectivity Verification (VCCV)", RFC 5885, June 2010.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.

   [RFC6291]  Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
              D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
              Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291, June 2011.

   [RFC6310]  Aissaoui, M., Busschbach, P., Martini, L., Morrow, M.,
              Nadeau, T., and Y(J). Stein, "Pseudowire (PW) Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Message Mapping",
              RFC 6310, July 2011.

   [RFC6371]  Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 47]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


              Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6371, September 2011.

   [RFC6374]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, September 2011.

   [RFC6375]  Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "A Packet Loss and Delay
              Measurement Profile for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
              RFC 6375, September 2011.

   [RFC6388]  Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
              "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
              Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
              Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.

   [RFC6424]  Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
              Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
              Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.

   [RFC6425]  Saxena, S., Swallow, G., Ali, Z., Farrel, A., Yasukawa,
              S., and T. Nadeau, "Detecting Data-Plane Failures in
              Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping",
              RFC 6425, November 2011.

   [RFC6426]  Gray, E., Bahadur, N., Boutros, S., and R. Aggarwal, "MPLS
              On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing",
              RFC 6426, November 2011.

   [RFC6427]  Swallow, G., Fulignoli, A., Vigoureux, M., Boutros, S.,
              and D. Ward, "MPLS Fault Management Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 6427,
              November 2011.

   [RFC6428]  Allan, D., Swallow Ed. , G., and J. Drake Ed. , "Proactive
              Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote
              Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile",
              RFC 6428, November 2011.

   [RFC6435]  Boutros, S., Sivabalan, S., Aggarwal, R., Vigoureux, M.,
              and X. Dai, "MPLS Transport Profile Lock Instruct and
              Loopback Functions", RFC 6435, November 2011.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.

   [RFC6478]  Martini, L., Swallow, G., Heron, G., and M. Bocci,
              "Pseudowire Status for Static Pseudowires", RFC 6478,



Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 48]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


              May 2012.

   [RFC6639]  King, D. and M. Venkatesan, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
              Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-Based Management
              Overview", RFC 6639, June 2012.

   [RFC6669]  Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the Operations,
              Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Toolset for MPLS-
              Based Transport Networks", RFC 6669, July 2012.

   [RFC6670]  Sprecher, N. and KY. Hong, "The Reasons for Selecting a
              Single Solution for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
              RFC 6670, July 2012.

   [RFC6720]  Pignataro, C. and R. Asati, "The Generalized TTL Security
              Mechanism (GTSM) for the Label Distribution Protocol
              (LDP)", RFC 6720, August 2012.

   [RFC6829]  Chen, M., Pan, P., Pignataro, C., and R. Asati, "Label
              Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire Forwarding
              Equivalence Classes (FECs) Advertised over IPv6",
              RFC 6829, January 2013.


Appendix A.  Organization of References Section

   The References section is split into Normative and Informative
   subsections.  References that directly specify forwarding
   encapsulations or behaviors are listed as normative.  References
   which describe signaling only, though normative with respect to
   signaling, are listed as informative.  They are informative with
   respect to MPLS forwarding.


Authors' Addresses

   Curtis Villamizar (editor)
   Outer Cape Cod Network Consulting, LLC

   Email: curtis@occnc.com


   Kireeti Kompella
   Contrail Systems

   Email: kireeti.kompella@gmail.com




Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 49]


Internet-Draft               MPLS Forwarding                  March 2013


   Shane Amante
   Level 3 Communications, Inc.
   1025 Eldorado Blvd
   Broomfield, CO  80021

   Email: shane@level3.net


   Andrew Malis
   Verizon
   60 Sylvan Road
   Waltham, MA  02451

   Phone: +1 781-466-2362
   Email: andrew.g.malis@verizon.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems
   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   US

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com



























Villamizar, et al.       Expires October 1, 2013               [Page 50]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/