draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-05.txt 
Network Working Group L. Andersson Network Working Group L. Andersson
Internet-Draft Acreo AB Internet-Draft Acreo AB
Updates: RFC 3032, RFC 3270, RFC July 7, 2008 Updates: RFC 3032, RFC 3270, RFC R. Asati
5129, RFC 3272, RFC 3443, RFC 5129, RFC 3272, RFC 3443, RFC Cisco Systems
3469, RFC 3564, RFC 3985, RFC 3469, RFC 3564, RFC 3985, RFC October 15, 2008
4182, RFC 4364, RFC 4379, RFC 4182, RFC 4364, RFC 4379, RFC
4448, RFC 4761 (if approved) 4448, RFC 4761 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 8, 2009 Expires: April 18, 2009
"EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field" "EXP field" renamed to "Traffic Class field"
draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-04.txt draft-ietf-mpls-cosfield-def-05.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 39 skipping to change at page 1, line 39
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
The early MPLS documents defined the form of the MPLS Label Stack The early MPLS documents defined the form of the MPLS Label Stack
entry. This include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The entry. This include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The
exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to
state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use". state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use".
Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of
Service" field, it was not named the "Class of Service" (CoS) field Service" field, it was not named the "Class of Service" (CoS) field
by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not
considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards
documents define its usage as a CoS field. . documents define its usage as a CoS field. .
To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, this To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has
document changes the name of the field to the "CoS field". In doing become increasingly necessary to rename this field. This document
so it also updates documents that define the current use of the EXP changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC
this field. field".) In doing so it also updates documents that define the
current use of the EXP this field.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Details of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Details of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. RFC 3032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. RFC 3032 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. RFC 3270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. RFC 3270 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. RFC 5129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. RFC 5129 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. The Scope of this Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4. The Scope of this Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Use of the CoS field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Use of the TC field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 16 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The format of a MPLS label stack entry is defined by RFC 3032 The format of a MPLS label stack entry is defined by RFC 3032
[RFC3032], include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The [RFC3032], include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The
exact use of this field is not defined by RFC 3032 leaves, except to exact use of this field is not defined by RFC 3032 leaves, except to
state that it is to be "reserved for experimental use". state that it is to be "reserved for experimental use".
The EXP field, from the start, was intended to carry "Class of The EXP field, from the start, was intended to carry "Class of
Service" information. The field was actually called the "Class of Service" information. The field was actually called the "Class of
Service field" in the early versions of the working group document Service field" in the early versions of the working group document
that was publshed as RFC 3032. However at the time that RFC 3032 was that was publshed as RFC 3032. However at the time that RFC 3032 was
published the exact usage of this "Class of Service" field was not published the exact usage of this "Class of Service" field was not
agreed and the field was designated as "Experimental use". agreed and the field was designated as "Experimental use".
The designation "for Experimental use" has led other Standards The designation "for Experimental use" has led other Standards
Development Organizations (SDO) and implementors to the assume that Development Organizations (SDO) and implementors to the assume that
it possible to use the field for other purposes than Class of it possible to use the field for other purposes. This document
Service. This document changes the name of the field to clearly changes the name of the field to clearly indicate its use as a
indicate its use. traffic classification field.
The use of the EXP field was first defined in RFC 3270 [RFC3270] At first we discussed to use the orignal "CoS field" as the name for
the field, but it has been pointed that this name does not cover the
following changes wrt its usage, since RFC 3032 was published.
1. The use of the EXP field was first defined in RFC 3270 [RFC3270]
where a method to define a variant of DiffServ LSPs called EXP- where a method to define a variant of DiffServ LSPs called EXP-
Inferred-PSC LSP (E-LSPs) were specified. Inferred-PSC LSP (E-LSPs) was specified.
The use of the EXP field as defined in RFC 3270 has been further 2. The use of the EXP field as defined in RFC 3270 has been further
extended in RFC 5129 [RFC5129], where methods for explicit congestion extended in RFC 5129 [RFC5129], where methods for explicit
marking in MPLS are defined. congestion marking in MPLS are defined.
This document, hence, uses the name "Traffic Class Field (TC Field)",
which better covers the potential use.
The defintions of how the EXP field are used are perfectly clear in The defintions of how the EXP field are used are perfectly clear in
RFC 3270 and RFC 5129. However, these RFCs do not explicitly state RFC 3270 and RFC 5129. However, these RFCs do not explicitly state
they update RFC 3032, and this fact is not captured in the RFC they update RFC 3032, and this fact is not captured in the RFC
respository. This document updates RFC 3032, RFC 3270 and RFC 5129 respository. This document updates RFC 3032, RFC 3270 and RFC 5129
to clarify the intended usage of the CoS field. to clarify the intended usage of the TC field. Section 2 explains
the changes.
This document, hence, uses the name "Traffic Class Field (TC Field)",
which better covers the potential use. The MPLS TC field relates to
an MPLS encapsulated packet the same way as the IPv6 TC field relates
to an IPv6 encapsulted packet or the IPv4 Precedence field relates to
an IPv4 encapsulated packet.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Details of change 2. Details of change
The three RFCs are now updated according to the following. The three RFCs are now updated according to the following.
2.1. RFC 3032 2.1. RFC 3032
RFC 3032 states on page 4: RFC 3032 states on page 4:
3. Experimental Use 3. Experimental Use
This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use. This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use.
This paragraph is now changed to: This paragraph is now changed to:
3. Class of Service (CoS) field 3. Traffic Class (TC) field
This three-bit field is used to carry Class of Service information This three-bit field is used to carry Traffic Class information
and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs
in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents. in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents.
The definition of how to use the CoS field has been updated by RFC RFC 3270 and RFC 5129 updates the definition of the TC field and
3270 and RFC 5129. describes how to use the field.
In Figure 1 on page 3 in RFC3032 the format of a label stack entry is In Figure 1 on page 3 in RFC3032 the format of a label stack entry is
specified as: specified as:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label
| Label | Exp |S| TTL | Stack | Label | Exp |S| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry
Label: Label Value, 20 bits Label: Label Value, 20 bits
Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
Figure 1 Figure 1
Figure 1 in RFC 3032 is now changed to match the change of name of Figure 1 in RFC 3032 is now changed to match the change of name of
the Cos field to: the TC field to:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label
| Label | CoS |S| TTL | Stack | Label | TC |S| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry
Label: Label Value, 20 bits Label: Label Value, 20 bits
CoS: Class of Service field, 3 bits CoS: Traffic Class field, 3 bits
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
Figure 1 Figure 1
2.2. RFC 3270 2.2. RFC 3270
RFC 3270 says on page 6: RFC 3270 says on page 6:
1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) 1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 7, line 41
We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the EXP the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the EXP
field value for that packet. field value for that packet.
The mapping from the EXP field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop The mapping from the EXP field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping. label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 below. Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 below.
RFC 3270 is now updated like this:
a. A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1 "Introduction":
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer
to the TC field.
b. A new term is added to section 1.1 "Terminology":
TC Traffic Class (replaces the term EXP)
c. A new acronym is added at the end of section 1.1 "Terminology":
T-LSP TC-Inferred-PSC LSP (future replacement of the term
E-LSP)
Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to: Section 1.2 on page 5 in RFC 3270 is now changed to:
1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP) 1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
The EXP field has been renamed to the CoS field, and thus all
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to references in RFC 3270 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
the CoS field. However, we retain the term E-LSP (EXP-Inferred- the TC field. However, we retain the term E-LSP (EXP-Inferred-PSC
PSC LSP) as it is in widespread use. LSP) as it is in widespread use.
A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs
can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the CoS field of the MPLS OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the TC field of the MPLS Shim
Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to
to the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference.
preference.
We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the CoS the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the TC
field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet. field (previously called the EXP field) value for that packet.
The mapping from the CoS field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop In future documents the term "TC-inferred-PSC LSPs" (T-LSP) may be
be used to refer to such LSPs as , since the PSC of a packet
transported on this LSP depends on the TC field value for that
packet. The meaning of E-SLP and T-LSP is the same.
The mapping from the TC field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping. label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original This is an update to RFC 3032 [RFC3032] in line with the original
intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used
(as CoS field). The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129 (as TC field). The RFC 3270 has itself been updated by RFC 5129
[RFC5129]. [RFC5129].
Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 of Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in section 3 of
RFC3270. RFC3270.
2.3. RFC 5129 2.3. RFC 5129
Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 of RFC 5129 says: Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 of RFC 5129 says:
o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this
skipping to change at page 7, line 49 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
an interior LSR has marked ECN in the EXP field of the shim an interior LSR has marked ECN in the EXP field of the shim
header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not ECN-capable, header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not ECN-capable,
the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop
popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we
call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in
the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause
packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this
decision is given in Section 8.1. decision is given in Section 8.1.
RFC 5219 is now updated like this: RFC 5129 is now updated like this:
A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1.1 "Background": A new paragraph is added at the end of section 1.1 "Background":
The EXP field has been renamed to the CoS field, and thus all The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in RFC 5219 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to references in RFC 5129 to EXP field SHOULD be taken to refer to
the CoS field. the TC field.
Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 ofis now changed to: Section 2 (bullet 3) on page 6 ofis now changed to:
o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this o A third possible approach was suggested by [Shayman]. In this
scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable, scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If
an interior LSR has marked ECN in the CoS field of the shim an interior LSR has marked ECN in the TC field of the shim header,
header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not CoS-capable, but the IP header says the endpoints are not TC-capable, the edge
the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop popping)
popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we call `per-
call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in the
the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause
packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this
decision is given in Section 8.1. This scheme is an update to RFC decision is given in Section 8.1. This scheme is an update to RFC
3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 3270 [RFC3270]. 3032 [RFC3032] and RFC 3270 [RFC3270].
2.4. The Scope of this Change 2.4. The Scope of this Change
There are several places in the RFCs that has explicitly updated by There are several places in the RFCs that has explicitly updated by
this document that refrence the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to this document that refrence the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to
the field as "Exp bits", "EXP bits" and "EXP". In all those the field as "Exp bits", "EXP bits" and "EXP". In all those
instances the references SHOULD be taken to reference the CoS field. instances the references SHOULD be taken to reference the TC field.
There are also other RFCs, e.g. RFC 3272 [RFC3272], RFC 3443 There are also other RFCs, e.g. RFC 3272 [RFC3272], RFC 3443
[RFC3443], RFC 3469 [RFC3469], RFC 3564 [RFC3564], RFC 3985 [RFC3443], RFC 3469 [RFC3469], RFC 3564 [RFC3564], RFC 3985
[RFC3985], RFC 4182 [RFC4182], RFC 4364 [RFC4364], RFC 4379 [RFC3985], RFC 4182 [RFC4182], RFC 4364 [RFC4364], RFC 4379
[RFC4379], RFC 4448 [RFC4448] and RFC 4761 [RFC4761] that references [RFC4379], RFC 4448 [RFC4448] and RFC 4761 [RFC4761] that references
the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to the field as "Exp bits", the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to the field as "Exp bits",
"EXP bits" and "EXP". For all RFCs, including but not limited to "EXP bits" and "EXP". For all RFCs, including but not limited to
those mentioned in this paragraph, such references SHOULD be taken to those mentioned in this paragraph, such references SHOULD be taken to
reference the CoS field. reference the TC field.
3. Use of the CoS field 3. Use of the TC field
Due to the limited number of bits in the CoS field, their use for QoS Due to the limited number of bits in the TC field, their use for QoS
and ECN functions is intended to be flexible. These funtions may and ECN functions is intended to be flexible. These funtions may
rewrite all or some of the bits in the CoS field. rewrite all or some of the bits in the TC field.
Current implementations look at the CoS field with and without label Current implementations look at the TC field with and without label
context and the CoS field may be copied to the label stack entries context and the TC field may be copied to the label stack entries
that are pushed onto the label stack. This is to avoid the pushed that are pushed onto the label stack. This is done to avoid that
label stack entries having a different CoS field. label stack entries that are pushed on to an existing label stack
have different TF fields from the rest of the label stack entries.
4. IANA considerations 4. IANA considerations
There are no request for IANA allocation of code points in this There are no request for IANA allocation of code points in this
document. document.
5. Security considerations 5. Security considerations
This document only changes the name of one field in the MPLS Shim This document only changes the name of one field in the MPLS Shim
Header and thus does not introduce any new security considerations. Header and thus does not introduce any new security considerations.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 17, line 5
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion [RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008. Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, January 2008.
7.2. Informative references 7.2. Informative references
[Shayman] Shayman, M. and R. Jaeger, University of Michigan, "Using [Shayman] Shayman, M. and R. Jaeger, University of Michigan, "Using
ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain", Work in ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain", Work in
Progress, November 2000.", <http://www.watersprings.org/ Progress, November 2000.", <http://www.watersprings.org/
pub/id/draft-shayman-mpls-ecn-00.txt/>. pub/id/draft-shayman-mpls-ecn-00.txt/>.
Author's Address Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson Loa Andersson
Acreo AB Acreo AB
Email: loa@pi.nu Email: loa@pi.nu
Rajiva Asati
Cisco Systems
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 End of changes. 35 change blocks. 
71 lines changed or deleted 114 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/