draft-chen-mpls-source-label-04.txt		draft-chen-mpls-source-label-05.txt
	skipping to change at page 1, line 14		skipping to change at page 1, line 14
	Internet-Draft X. Xu		Internet-Draft X. Xu
	Intended status: Standards Track Z. Li		Intended status: Standards Track Z. Li
	Expires: January 4, 2015 Huawei		Expires: January 4, 2015 Huawei
	L. Fang		L. Fang
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	G. Mirsky		G. Mirsky
	Ericsson		Ericsson
	July 3, 2014		July 3, 2014
	MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Source Label		MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Source Label
	draft-chen-mpls-source-label-04		draft-chen-mpls-source-label-05
	Abstract		Abstract
	A MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) label was originally defined		A MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) label was originally defined
	to identify a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC), a packet is		to identify a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC), a packet is
	assigned to a specific FEC based on its network layer destination		assigned to a specific FEC based on its network layer destination
	address. It's difficult or even impossible to derive the source		address. It's difficult or even impossible to derive the source
	identity information from the label. For some applications, source		identity information from the label. For some applications, source
	identification is a critical requirement. For example, performance		identification is a critical requirement. For example, performance
	monitoring, where the monitoring node needs to identify where a		monitoring, where the monitoring node needs to identify where a
	skipping to change at page 2, line 47		skipping to change at page 2, line 47
	6.1. Source Label Capability Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6.1. Source Label Capability Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6.1.1. LDP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6.1.1. LDP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6.1.2. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6.1.2. BGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6.1.3. IGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.1.3. IGP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.2. Source Label Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2. Source Label Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.1. Source Label Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.1. Source Label Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.2. LDP Source Label Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.2. LDP Source Label Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7.3. BGP Source Label Capability Attribute . . . . . . . . . . 10		7.3. BGP Source Label Capability Attribute . . . . . . . . . . 10
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	1. Problem Statement and Introduction		1. Problem Statement and Introduction
	A MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) label [RFC3031] was originally		A MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) label [RFC3031] was originally
	defined for packet forwarding and assumes the forwarding/destination		defined for packet forwarding and assumes the forwarding/destination
	address semantics. As no source identity information is carried in		address semantics. As no source identity information is carried in
	skipping to change at page 8, line 17		skipping to change at page 8, line 17
	Mapping for F to its neighbors. If X understands the SLC TLV, and if		Mapping for F to its neighbors. If X understands the SLC TLV, and if
	any of the advertisements it received for FEC F does not include the		any of the advertisements it received for FEC F does not include the
	SLC TLV, X MUST NOT include the SLC TLV in its own advertisements of		SLC TLV, X MUST NOT include the SLC TLV in its own advertisements of
	F. If all the advertised Mappings for F include the SLC TLV, then X		F. If all the advertised Mappings for F include the SLC TLV, then X
	MUST advertise its Mapping for F with the SLC TLV. If any of X's		MUST advertise its Mapping for F with the SLC TLV. If any of X's
	neighbors resends its Mapping, sends a new Mapping or sends a Label		neighbors resends its Mapping, sends a new Mapping or sends a Label
	Withdraw for a previously advertised Mapping for F, X MUST re-		Withdraw for a previously advertised Mapping for F, X MUST re-
	evaluate the status of SLC for FEC F, and, if there is a change, X		evaluate the status of SLC for FEC F, and, if there is a change, X
	MUST re-advertise its Mapping for F with the updated status of SLC.		MUST re-advertise its Mapping for F with the updated status of SLC.
			LDP is normally running within an AS, technically, it can be deployed
			across ASes. An implementation supports the SLC MUST support a per-
			session/per-interface configuration item to enable/disable the SLC.
			For the session/interface that connects to other SLADs, the SLC MUST
			be disabled.
	6.1.2. BGP Extensions		6.1.2. BGP Extensions
	When Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271] is used for distributing		When Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271] is used for distributing
	Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) as described in, for		Network Layer Reachability Information (NLRI) as described in, for
	example, [RFC3107], [RFC4364], the BGP UPDATE message may include the		example, [RFC3107], [RFC4364], the BGP UPDATE message may include the
	SLC attribute as part of the Path Attributes. This is an optional,		SLC attribute as part of the Path Attributes. This is an optional,
	non-transitive BGP attribute of value TBD3. The inclusion of this		non-transitive BGP attribute of value TBD3. The inclusion of this
	attribute with an NLRI indicates that the advertising BGP router can		attribute with an NLRI indicates that the advertising BGP router can
	process Source Labels as an egress LSR for all routes in that NLRI.		process Source Labels as an egress LSR for all routes in that NLRI.
End of changes. 3 change blocks.
	2 lines changed or deleted		8 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/