draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-01.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-02.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 13 skipping to change at page 1, line 13
Internet Draft Huawei Internet Draft Huawei
Category: Standard Track N. Sheth Category: Standard Track N. Sheth
Juniper Juniper
L. Yong L. Yong
Huawei Huawei
C. Pignataro C. Pignataro
Cisco Cisco
Y. Fan Y. Fan
China Telecom China Telecom
Expires: September 2013 March 30, 2013 Expires: December 2013 June 9, 2013
Encapsulating MPLS in UDP Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-01 draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-02
Abstract Abstract
Existing technologies to encapsulate Multi-Protocol Label Switching Existing technologies to encapsulate Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) over IP are not adequate for efficient load balancing of MPLS (MPLS) over IP are not adequate for efficient load balancing of MPLS
application traffic, such as MPLS-based Layer2 Virtual Private application traffic, such as MPLS-based Layer2 Virtual Private
Network (L2VPN) or Layer3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) traffic Network (L2VPN) or Layer3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) traffic
across IP networks. This document specifies additional IP-based across IP networks. This document specifies additional IP-based
encapsulation technology, referred to as MPLS-in-User Datagram encapsulation technology, referred to as MPLS-in-User Datagram
Protocol (UDP), which can facilitate the load balancing of MPLS Protocol (UDP), which can facilitate the load balancing of MPLS
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2013. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 9, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 32
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].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................ 3
1.1. Existing Technologies .................................. 3 1.1. Existing Technologies .................................. 3
1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation .............. 4 1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation .............. 4
2. Terminology ................................................. 4 2. Terminology ................................................. 4
3. Encapsulation in UDP......................................... 4 3. Encapsulation in UDP ........................................ 4
4. Processing Procedures ....................................... 5 4. Processing Procedures ....................................... 5
5. Applicability ............................................... 6 5. Applicability ............................................... 6
6. Security Considerations ..................................... 6 6. Security Considerations ..................................... 6
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6 7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6
8. Acknowledgements ............................................ 6 8. Acknowledgements ............................................ 6
9. References .................................................. 7 9. References .................................................. 7
9.1. Normative References ................................... 7 9.1. Normative References ................................... 7
9.2. Informative References ................................. 7 9.2. Informative References ................................. 7
Authors' Addresses ............................................. 8 Authors' Addresses ............................................. 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
To fully utilize the bandwidth available in IP networks and/or To fully utilize the bandwidth available in IP networks and/or
facilitate recovery from a link or node failure, load balancing of facilitate recovery from a link or node failure, load balancing of
traffic over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation traffic over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation
Group (LAG) across IP networks is widely used. In effect, most Group (LAG) across IP networks is widely used. In effect, most
existing core routers in IP networks are already capable of existing core routers in IP networks are already capable of
distributing IP traffic flows over ECMP paths and/or LAG based on distributing IP traffic flows over ECMP paths and/or LAG based on the
the hash of the five-tuple of User Datagram Protocol (UDP)[RFC768] hash of the five-tuple of User Datagram Protocol (UDP)[RFC768] and
and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packets (i.e., source IP Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packets (i.e., source IP address,
address, destination IP address, source port, destination port, and destination IP address, source port, destination port, and protocol).
protocol).
In practice, there are some scenarios for Multi-Protocol Label In practice, there are some scenarios for Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) applications (e.g., MPLS-based Layer2 Virtual Switching (MPLS) applications (e.g., MPLS-based Layer2 Virtual
Private Network (L2VPN) or Layer3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN)) Private Network (L2VPN) or Layer3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN))
where the MPLS application traffic needs to be transported through where the MPLS application traffic needs to be transported through
IP-based tunnels, rather than MPLS tunnels. For example, MPLS-based IP-based tunnels, rather than MPLS tunnels. For example, MPLS-based
L2VPN or L3VPN technologies may be used for interconnecting L2VPN or L3VPN technologies may be used for interconnecting
geographically dispersed enterprise data centers or branch offices geographically dispersed enterprise data centers or branch offices
across IP Wide Area Networks (WAN) where enterprise own router across IP Wide Area Networks (WAN) where enterprise own router
devices are deployed as L2VPN or L3VPN Provider Edge (PE) routers. devices are deployed as L2VPN or L3VPN Provider Edge (PE) routers. In
In this case, efficient load balancing of the MPLS application this case, efficient load balancing of the MPLS application traffic
traffic across IP networks is much desirable. across IP networks is very desirable.
1.1. Existing Technologies 1.1. Existing Technologies
With existing IP-based encapsulation methods for MPLS applications, With existing IP-based encapsulation methods for MPLS applications,
such as MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) such as MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
[RFC4023] or even MPLS-in-Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 [RFC4023] or even MPLS-in-Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3
(L2TPv3)[RFC4817], distinct customer traffic flows between a given (L2TPv3)[RFC4817], distinct customer traffic flows between a given PE
PE router pair would be encapsulated with the same IP-based tunnel router pair would be encapsulated with the same IP-based tunnel
headers prior to traversing the core of the IP WAN. Since the headers prior to traversing the core of the IP WAN. Since the
encapsulated traffic is neither TCP nor UDP traffic, for many encapsulated traffic is neither TCP nor UDP traffic, for many
existing core routers which could only perform hash calculation on existing core routers which could only perform hash calculation on
fields in the IP headers of those tunnels (i.e., source IP address, fields in the IP headers of those tunnels (i.e., source IP address,
destination IP address), it would be hard to achieve a fine-grained destination IP address), it would be hard to achieve a fine-grained
load balancing of these traffic flows across the network core due to load balancing of these traffic flows across the network core due to
the lack of adequate entropy information. the lack of adequate entropy information.
[RFC5640] describes a method for improving the load balancing [RFC5640] describes a method for improving the load balancing
efficiency in a network carrying Softwire Mesh service over L2TPv3 efficiency in a network carrying Softwire Mesh service over L2TPv3
and GRE encapsulation. However, this method requires core routers to and GRE encapsulation. However, this method requires core routers to
be capable of performing hash calculation on the "load-balancing" be capable of performing hash calculation on the "load-balancing"
field contained in the tunnel encapsulation headers (i.e., the field contained in the tunnel encapsulation headers (i.e., the
Session ID field in the L2TPv3 header or the Key field in the GRE Session ID field in the L2TPv3 header or the Key field in the GRE
header), which means a non-trivial change to the date plane of many header), which means a non-trivial change to the date plane of many
existing core routers. existing core routers.
1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation 1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation
On basis of the fact that most existing core routers (i.e., P On basis of the fact that most existing core routers (i.e., P routers
routers in the context of MPLS-based L2VPN or L3VPN) are already in the context of MPLS-based L2VPN or L3VPN) are already capable of
capable of balancing IP traffic flows over the IP networks based on balancing IP traffic flows over the IP networks based on the hash of
the hash of the five-tuple of UDP packets, it would be advantageous the five-tuple of UDP packets, it would be advantageous to use MPLS-
to use MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation instead of MPLS-in-GRE or MPLS-in- in-UDP encapsulation instead of MPLS-in-GRE or MPLS-in-L2TPv3 in the
L2TPv3 in the environments where the load balancing of MPLS environments where the load balancing of MPLS application traffic
application traffic across IP networks is much desired but the load across IP networks is much desired but the load balancing mechanisms
balancing mechanisms defined in [RFC5640] have not yet been widely defined in [RFC5640] have not yet been widely supported by most
supported by most existing core routers. In this way, the default existing core routers. In this way, the default load balancing
load balancing capability of most existing core routers as mentioned capability of most existing core routers as mentioned above can be
above can be utilized directly without requiring any change to them. utilized directly without requiring any change to them.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC4364] and [RFC4664]. This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC4364] and [RFC4664].
3. Encapsulation in UDP 3. Encapsulation in UDP
MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format is shown as follows: MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format is shown as follows:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = entropy | Dest Port = MPLS | | Source Port = Entropy | Dest Port = MPLS |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum | | UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ MPLS Label Stack ~ ~ MPLS Label Stack ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ Message Body ~ ~ Message Body ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Source Port of UDP Source Port of UDP
This field contains an entropy value that is generated This field contains an entropy value that is generated by
by the ingress PE router. For example, the entropy value the ingress PE router. For example, the entropy value can
can be generated by performing hash calculation on be generated by performing hash calculation on certain
certain fields in the customer packets (e.g., the five fields in the customer packets (e.g., the five tuple of
tuple of UDP/TCP packets). UDP/TCP packets).
Destination Port of UDP Destination Port of UDP
This field is set to a value (TBD) indicating the top This field is set to a value (TBD) indicating that the
label of the MPLS label stack encapsulated in the UDP UDP tunnel payload is a MPLS packet. As for whether the
header is MPLS or MPLS with upstream-assigned label. top label in the MPLS label stack is downstream-assigned
or upstream-assigned, it SHOULD be determined based on
the tunnel destination IP address. That is to say, if the
destination IP address is a multicast address, the top
label SHOULD be upstream-assigned, otherwise if the
destination IP address is a unicast address, it SHOULD be
downstream-assigned.
UDP Length UDP Length
The usage of this field is in accordance with the The usage of this field is in accordance with the current
current UDP specification. UDP specification.
UDP Checksum UDP Checksum
The usage of this field is in accordance with the The usage of this field is in accordance with the current
current UDP specification. To simplify the operation on UDP specification. To simplify the operation on egress PE
egress PE routers, this field is RECOMMENDED to be set routers, this field is RECOMMENDED to be set to zero in
to zero in IPv4 UDP encapsulation case, and even in IPv6 IPv4 UDP encapsulation case, and even in IPv6 UDP
UDP encapsulation case if appropriate[UDPCHECKSUMS] encapsulation case if appropriate[RFC6935][RFC6936].
[UDPZERO].
MPLS Label Stack MPLS Label Stack
This field contains an MPLS Label Stack as defined in This field contains an MPLS Label Stack as defined in
[RFC3032]. [RFC3032].
Message Body Message Body
This field contains one MPLS message body. This field contains one MPLS message body.
4. Processing Procedures 4. Processing Procedures
This MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be forwarded This MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be forwarded
through "UDP tunnels". When performing MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation by through "UDP tunnels". When performing MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation by
an ingress PE router, the entropy value would be generated by the an ingress PE router, the entropy value would be generated by the
ingress PE router and then be filled in the Source Port field of the ingress PE router and then be filled in the Source Port field of the
UDP header. As such, P routers, upon receiving these UDP UDP header. As such, P routers, upon receiving these UDP encapsulated
encapsulated packets, could balance these packets based on the hash packets, could balance these packets based on the hash of the five-
of the five-tuple of UDP packets. tuple of UDP packets.
Upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, egress PE routers Upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, egress PE routers
would decapsulate them by removing the UDP headers and then process would decapsulate them by removing the UDP headers and then process
them accordingly. them accordingly.
As for other common processing procedures associated with tunneling As for other common processing procedures associated with tunneling
encapsulation technologies including but not limited to Maximum encapsulation technologies including but not limited to Maximum
Transmission Unit (MTU) and preventing fragmentation and reassembly, Transmission Unit (MTU) and preventing fragmentation and reassembly,
Time to Live (TTL) and differentiated services, the corresponding Time to Live (TTL) and differentiated services, the corresponding
procedures defined in [RFC4023] which are applicable for MPLS-in-IP procedures defined in [RFC4023] which are applicable for MPLS-in-IP
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
5. Applicability 5. Applicability
Besides the MPLS-based L3VPN [RFC4364] and L2VPN [RFC4761, RFC4762] Besides the MPLS-based L3VPN [RFC4364] and L2VPN [RFC4761, RFC4762]
applications, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation could apply to other MPLS applications, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation could apply to other MPLS
applications including but not limited to 6PE [RFC4798] and PWE3 applications including but not limited to 6PE [RFC4798] and PWE3
services. services.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Just like MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation formats, the Just like MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation formats, the MPLS-
MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format defined in this document by itself in-UDP encapsulation format defined in this document by itself cannot
cannot ensure the integrity and privacy of data packets being ensure the integrity and privacy of data packets being transported
transported through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and cannot enable the through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and cannot enable the tunnel
tunnel decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel encapsulator. In the decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel encapsulator. In the case
case where any of the above security issues is concerned, the MPLS- where any of the above security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in-UDP
in-UDP tunnels SHOULD be secured with IPsec in transport mode. In tunnels SHOULD be secured with IPsec in transport mode. In this way,
this way, the UDP header would not be seeable to P routers anymore. the UDP header would not be visible to P routers anymore. As a result,
As a result, the meaning of adopting MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation the meaning of adopting MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format as an
format as an alternative to MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation alternative to MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation formats is
formats is lost. Hence, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format SHOULD be lost. Hence, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format SHOULD be used only in
used only in the scenarios where all the security issues as the scenarios where all the security issues as mentioned above are
mentioned above are not significant concerns. For example, in a data not significant concerns. For example, in a data center environment,
center environment, the whole network including P routers and PE the whole network including P routers and PE routers are under the
routers are under the control of a single administrative entity and control of a single administrative entity and therefore there is no
therefore there is no need to worry about the above security issues. need to worry about the above security issues.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
Two distinct UDP destination port numbers indicating MPLS and MPLS One UDP destination port number indicating MPLS needs to be allocated
with upstream-assigned label respectively need to be assigned by by IANA.
IANA.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Shane Amante, Dino Farinacci, Keshava A K, Ivan Pepelnjak, Thanks to Shane Amante, Dino Farinacci, Keshava A K, Ivan Pepelnjak,
Eric Rosen, Andrew G. Malis, Kireeti Kompella, Marshall Eubanks, Eric Rosen, Andrew G. Malis, Kireeti Kompella, Marshall Eubanks,
Vivek Kumar, Weiguo Hao, Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong for their George Swallow, Loa Andersson, Ross Callon, Vivek Kumar, Weiguo Hao,
valuable comments on the idea of MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation. Thanks Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong for their valuable comments and
to Daniel King, Gregory Mirsky and Eric Osborne for their valuable suggestions on this document. Thanks to Daniel King, Gregory Mirsky
reviews on this draft. and Eric Osborne for their valuable reviews on this document.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC4364] Rosen, E and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private [RFC4364] Rosen, E and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L. and Rosen, E. (Editors),"Framework for Layer [RFC4664] Andersson, L. and Rosen, E. (Editors),"Framework for Layer
2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, Sept 2006. 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, Sept 2006.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating [RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating MPLS
MPLS in IP or GRE", RFC4023, March 2005. in IP or GRE", RFC4023, March 2005.
[RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
[RFC4817] M. Townsley, C. Pignataro, S. Wainner, T. Seely and J. [RFC4817] M. Townsley, C. Pignataro, S. Wainner, T. Seely and J.
Young, "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling Young, "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling
Protocol Version 3, March 2007. Protocol Version 3, March 2007.
[RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load- [RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load-
Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, August 2009. Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640, August 2009.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan, [RFC5332] Eckert, T., Rosen, E., Aggarwal, R., and Y. Rekhter, "MPLS
J., and S. Amante, "Flow Aware Transport of Pseudowires Multicast Encapsulations", RFC 5332, August 2008.
over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC6391, November
2011
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and L.
Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-label-01, work in progress,
October, 2011.
[RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the
BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, April
2009.
[RFC4798] J Declerq et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS [RFC4798] J Declerq et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS
using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC4798, February using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC4798, February
2007. 2007.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
4761, January 2007. 4761, January 2007.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
RFC 4762, January 2007. RFC 4762, January 2007.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
[UDPCHECKSUMS] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "UDP [RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "UDP
Checksums for Tunneled Packets", draft-ietf-6man- Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC6935,
udpchecksums-08 (work in progress), February 2013. Feburary 2013.
[UDPZERO] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", for the use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-12 (work in progress), February RFC6936, Feburary 2013.
2013.
[IP-in-UDP] Xu, etc, "Encapsulating IP in UDP", draft-xu-softwire- [IP-in-UDP] Xu, etc, "Encapsulating IP in UDP", draft-xu-softwire-ip-
ip-in-udp-01 (work in progress), February 2013. in-udp-01 (work in progress), February 2013.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu Xiaohu Xu
Huawei Technologies, Huawei Technologies
Beijing, China Beijing, China
Phone: +86-10-60610041 Phone: +86-10-60610041
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Nischal Sheth Nischal Sheth
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: nsheth@juniper.net Email: nsheth@juniper.net
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 8, line 39
1194 N. Mathilda Ave 1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: nsheth@juniper.net Email: nsheth@juniper.net
Lucy Yong Lucy Yong
Huawei USA Huawei USA
5340 Legacy Dr. 5340 Legacy Dr.
Plano TX75025 Plano TX75025
Phone: 469-277-5837 Phone: 469-277-5837
Email: Lucy.yong@huawei.com Email: Lucy.yong@huawei.com
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road 7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
USA USA
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Yongbing Fan Yongbing Fan
China Telecom China Telecom
Guangzhou, China. Guangzhou, China.
Phone: +86 20 38639121 Phone: +86 20 38639121
Email: fanyb@gsta.com Email: fanyb@gsta.com
Zhenbin Li Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies, Huawei Technologies,
Beijing, China Beijing, China
Phone: +86-10-60613676 Phone: +86-10-60613676
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
102 lines changed or deleted 89 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/