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/ |