draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt
	Network working group X. Xu		Network working group X. Xu
	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: March 2014 September 9, 2013		Expires: June 2014 December 12, 2013
	Encapsulating MPLS in UDP		Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
	draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-03		draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document specifies an additional IP-based encapsulation for		This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, called
	MPLS, referred to as MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol), which is		MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol).
	applicable in some circumstances. This document only describes the
	MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 March 9, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 12, 2014.
	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 27		skipping to change at page 2, line 18
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction ................................................ 3		1. Introduction ................................................ 3
	1.1. Existing Encapsulations ................................ 3		1.1. Existing Encapsulations ................................ 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 ....................................... 6
	5. Congestion Considerations ................................... 6		5. Congestion Considerations ................................... 6
	6. Security Considerations ..................................... 6		6. Security Considerations ..................................... 7
	7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 6		7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8
	8. Contributors ................................................ 7		8. Contributors ................................................ 8
	9. Acknowledgements ............................................ 7		9. Acknowledgements ............................................ 9
	10. References ................................................. 7		10. References ................................................. 9
	10.1. Normative References .................................. 7		10.1. Normative References .................................. 9
	10.2. Informative References ................................ 8		10.2. Informative References ................................ 9
	Authors' Addresses ............................................. 8		Authors' Addresses ............................................ 10
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document specifies an additional IP-based encapsulation for		This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, i.e.
	MPLS, referred to as MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol). It also		MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol), which is applicable in some
	describes the applicability of this encapsulation in presence of		circumstances where IP-based encapsulation for MPLS is required and
	other IP-based encapsulations for MPLS.		further fine-grained load balancing of MPLS packets over IP
			networks over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation
			Groups (LAG) is required as well. There are already IP-based
			encapsulations for MPLS that allow for fine-grained load balancing
			by using some special field in the encapsulation header as an
			entropy field. However, MPLS-in-UDP can be advantageous since some
			networks have used the UDP port number fields as a basis for load-
			balancing solutions for some time. This is similar to why LISP [RFC
			6830] uses UDP encapsulation.
	This encapsulation allows for two Label Switching Routers (LSR) to		Like other IP-based encapsulation methods for MPLS, this
	be adjacent on a Label Switched Path (LSP), while separated by an		encapsulation allows for two Label Switching Routers (LSR) to be
	IP network. In order to support this encapsulation, each LSR needs		adjacent on a Label Switched Path (LSP), while separated by an IP
	to know the capability to decapsulate MPLS-in-UDP by the remote		network. In order to support this encapsulation, each LSR needs to
	LSRs. This specification defines only the data plane encapsulation		know the capability to decapsulate MPLS-in-UDP by the remote LSRs.
	and does not concern itself with how the knowledge to use this		This specification defines only the data plane encapsulation and
	encapsulation is conveyed.		does not concern itself with how the knowledge to use this
			encapsulation is conveyed. Specifically, this capability can be
			either manually configured on each LSR or be dynamically advertised
			in manners that are outside the scope of this document.
	An applicability statement will compare situations in which using		Similarly, the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format defined in this
	the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation might be advantageous over other IP-		document by itself cannot ensure the integrity and privacy of data
	based encapsulations for MPLS. One of the key considerations in		packets being transported through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and
	this respect is how to achieve efficient load-balance of traffic		cannot enable the tunnel decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel
	over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation Group		encapsulator. Therefore, in the case where any of the above
	(LAG).		security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in-UDP SHOULD be secured
			with IPsec [RFC4301] or DTLS [RFC6347]. For more details, please
			see section 6 of Security Considerations.
	1.1. Existing Encapsulations		1.1. Existing Encapsulations
	Currently, there are a number of IP-based encapsulations for MPLS.		Currently, there are several IP-based encapsulations for MPLS such
	These include MPLS-in-IP, MPLS-in- GRE (Generic Routing		as MPLS-in-IP, MPLS-in-GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation)
	Encapsulation) [RFC4023], and MPLS-in-L2TPv3 (Layer Two Tunneling		[RFC4023], and MPLS-in-L2TPv3 (Layer Two Tunneling Protocol -
	Protocol - Version 3)[RFC4817]. In all these methods, the IP		Version 3) [RFC4817]. In all these methods, the IP addresses can be
	addresses can be varied to achieve load-balancing.		varied to achieve load-balancing.
	All these IP-based encapsulations for MPLS are specified for both		All these IP-based encapsulations for MPLS are specified for both
	IPv4 and IPv6. In the case of IPv6-based encapsulations, the IPv6		IPv4 and IPv6. In the case of IPv6-based encapsulations, the IPv6
	Flow Label can be used for ECMP and LAGs [RFC6438].		Flow Label can be used for ECMP and LAGs [RFC6438]. However, there
			is no such entropy field in the IPv4 header.
	For MPLS-in-GRE as well as MPLS-in-L2TPv3, protocol fields (the GRE		For MPLS-in-GRE as well as MPLS-in-L2TPv3, protocol fields (the GRE
	Key and the L2TPv3 Session ID respectively) can be used as the		Key and the L2TPv3 Session ID respectively) can be used as the
	load-balancing key. This method is described in [RFC5640]. For this,		load-balancing key as described in [RFC5640]. For this, core
	however, core routers need to understand these fields in the		routers need to understand these fields in the context of being
	context of being used as load-balancing keys.		used as load-balancing keys.
	In terms of MPLS-based encapsulations, load-balancing is achieved
	with the introduction of the Entropy Label [RFC6790].
	1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation		1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation
	Currently, many existing routers in IP networks are already capable		Currently, most existing routers in IP networks are already capable
	of distributing IP traffic "microflows" [RFC2474] over ECMP paths		of distributing IP traffic "microflows" [RFC2474] over ECMPs and/or
	and/or LAG based on the hash of the five-tuple of User Datagram		LAG based on the hash of the five-tuple of User Datagram Protocol
	Protocol (UDP)[RFC768] and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)		(UDP)[RFC768] and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packets (i.e.,
	packets (i.e., source IP address, destination IP address, source		source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination
	port, destination port, and protocol).		port, and protocol). By encapsulating the MPLS packets into an UDP
			tunnel and using the source port of the UDP header as an entropy
	The motivation of MPLS-in-UDP is to leverage this existing		field, the existing load-balancing capability as mentioned above
	capability to provide load-balancing of MPLS traffic over IP		can be leveraged to provide fine-grained load-balancing of MPLS
	networks.		traffic over IP networks.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	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		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in
	this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119		this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119
	[RFC2119].		[RFC2119].
	3. Encapsulation in UDP		3. Encapsulation in UDP
	skipping to change at page 4, line 48		skipping to change at page 5, line 10
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| |		| |
	~ Message Body ~		~ Message Body ~
	| |		| |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Source Port of UDP		Source Port of UDP
	This field contains a 16-bit entropy value that is		This field contains a 16-bit entropy value that is
	generated by the ingress PE router. For example, the		generated by the ingress PE router. What algorithm is
	entropy value can be generated by performing hash		actually used by the ingress PE router to generate an
	calculation on certain fields in the customer packets		entropy value is outside the scope of this doc. In the
	(e.g., the five tuple of UDP/TCP packets).		case where the flow does not need entropy, this field
			SHOULD be set to a randomly selected constant value to
			avoid packet reordering.
	Destination Port of UDP		Destination Port of UDP
	This field is set to a value (TBD) indicating that the		This field is set to a value allocated by
	UDP tunnel payload is a MPLS packet. As for whether the		IANA) indicating that the UDP tunnel payload is an MPLS
	top label in the MPLS label stack is downstream-		packet using MPLS-in-UDP (TBD1).
	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 UDP specification [RFC768].		current UDP specification [RFC768].
	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 UDP specification. To simplify the operation on		current UDP specification [RFC768]. To simplify the
	egress PE routers, this field is RECOMMENDED to be set		operation on egress PE routers, this field is
	to zero in IPv4 UDP encapsulation case, and also in		RECOMMENDED to be set to zero in IPv4 UDP encapsulation
	IPv6 UDP encapsulation case if appropriate [RFC6935]		case. In the IPv6 UDP encapsulation case, if
	[RFC6936].		appropriate according to the requirements defined in
			[RFC6935] [RFC6936], this field is also RECOMMENDED to
			be set to zero. Specifically, if the MPLS payload is
			Internet Protocol (IPv4 or IPv6) packets, it is
			RECOMMENDED to be set to zero when the inner packet
			integrity checks is available. In addition, if the MPLS
			payload is non-IP packet which is specifically designed
			for transmission over a lower layer that does not
			provide a packet integrity guarantee, it is RECOMMENDED
			to be set to zero as well. Otherwise, using zero
			checksum is NOT RECOMMENDED. Note that other IP
			encapsulations for MPLS do not have a checksum in the
			transport header.
	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
	skipping to change at page 5, line 46		skipping to change at page 6, line 17
	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		ingress PE router and then be filled in the Source Port field of
	the UDP header. As such, P routers, upon receiving these UDP		the UDP header. The Destination Port field is set to a value (TBD1
	encapsulated packets, could balance these packets based on the hash		for MPLS-in-UDP or TBD2 for MPLS-in-UDP with DTLS) allocated by
	of the five-tuple of UDP packets.		IANA to indicate that the UDP tunnel payload is an MPLS packet. As
			for whether the 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.
			As such, P routers, upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets,
			could balance these packets based on the hash of the five-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
	"Common Procedures" defined in [RFC4023] which are applicable for		"Common Procedures" defined in [RFC4023] which are applicable for
	skipping to change at page 6, line 28		skipping to change at page 7, line 7
	MPLS can carry a number of different protocols as payloads. When an		MPLS can carry a number of different protocols as payloads. When an
	MPLS/UDP flow carries IP-based traffic, the aggregate traffic is		MPLS/UDP flow carries IP-based traffic, the aggregate traffic is
	assumed to be TCP friendly due to the congestion control mechanisms		assumed to be TCP friendly due to the congestion control mechanisms
	used by the payload traffic. Packet loss will trigger the necessary		used by the payload traffic. Packet loss will trigger the necessary
	reduction in offered load, and no additional congestion avoidance		reduction in offered load, and no additional congestion avoidance
	action is necessary. When an MPLS/UDP flow carries payload traffic		action is necessary. When an MPLS/UDP flow carries payload traffic
	that is not known to be TCP friendly and the flow runs across an		that is not known to be TCP friendly and the flow runs across an
	unprovisioned path that could potentially become congested, the		unprovisioned path that could potentially become congested, the
	application that uses the encapsulation specified in this document		application that uses the encapsulation specified in this document
	MUST employ additional mechanisms to ensure that the offered load		MUST employ additional mechanisms to ensure that the offered load
	is reduced appropriately during periods of congestion.		is reduced appropriately during periods of congestion. This is not
			necessary in the case of an unprovisioned path through an over-
			provisioned network, where the potential for congestion is avoided
			through the over-provisioning of the network.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	Just like other IP-based encapsulations of MPLS, the MPLS-in-UDP		Just like other IP-based encapsulations of MPLS, the MPLS-in-UDP
	encapsulation format defined in this document by itself cannot		encapsulation format defined in this document by itself cannot
	ensure the integrity and privacy of data packets being transported		ensure the integrity and privacy of data packets being transported
	through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and cannot enable the tunnel		through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and cannot enable the tunnel
	decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel encapsulator. In the case		decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel encapsulator. In the case
	where any of the above security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in-		where any of the above security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in-
	UDP tunnels SHOULD be secured with IPsec in transport mode. In this		UDP tunnels SHOULD be secured with IPsec or DTLS. If the tunnel is
	way, the UDP header would not be visible to P routers anymore. As a		secured with IPsec, the UDP header would not be visible to P
	result, the meaning of adopting MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format as		routers anymore. As a result, the meaning of adopting MPLS-in-UDP
	an alternative to MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP encapsulation formats		encapsulation format as an alternative to MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-
	is lost. Hence, MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format SHOULD be used		IP encapsulation formats is lost. If DTLS is used, the destination
	only in the scenarios where all the security issues as mentioned		port of the UDP header will be filled with a value (TBD2)
	above are not significant concerns.		indicating MPLS with DTLS and the source port can still be used as
			an entropy field.
			If the tunnels are not secured with IPsec or DTLS, some other
			method should be used to ensure that packets are decapsulated and
			forwarded by the tunnel tail only if those packets were
			encapsulated by the tunnel head. If the tunnel lies entirely within
			a single administrative domain, address filtering at the boundaries
			can be used to ensure that no packet with the IP source address of
			a tunnel endpoint or with the IP destination address of a tunnel
			endpoint can enter the domain from outside. However, when the
			tunnel head and the tunnel tail are not in the same administrative
			domain, this may become difficult, and filtering based on the
			destination address can even become impossible if the packets must
			traverse the public Internet. Sometimes only source address
			filtering (but not destination address filtering) is done at the
			boundaries of an administrative domain. If this is the case, the
			filtering does not provide effective protection at all unless the
			decapsulator of an MPLS-in-UDP validates the IP source address of
			the packet. This document does not require that the decapsulator
			validate the IP source address of the tunneled packets, but it
			should be understood that failure to do so presupposes that there
			is effective destination-based (or a combination of source-based
			and destination-based) filtering at the boundaries.
	7. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	One UDP destination port number indicating MPLS needs to be		One UDP destination port number indicating MPLS needs to be
	allocated by IANA.		allocated by IANA.
	Service Name : MPLS-in-UDP		Service Name : MPLS-in-UDP
	Transport Protocol(s) : UDP		Transport Protocol(s) : UDP
	Assignee : IESG <iesg@ietf.org>		Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
	Contact : IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>.		Contact : IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>.
	Description : Encapsulate MPLS packets in UDP tunnels.		Description : Encapsulate MPLS packets in UDP tunnels.
	Reference : This document -- draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp (MPLS WG		Reference : This document -- draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp (MPLS WG
	document).		document).
	Port Number : To be assigned by IANA.		Port Number : TBD1 -- To be assigned by IANA.
			One UDP destination port number indicating MPLS with DTLS needs to
			be allocated by IANA.
			Service Name : MPLS-in-UDP with DTLS
			Transport Protocol(s) : UDP
			Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
			Contact : IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>.
			Description : Encapsulate MPLS packets in UDP tunnels with DTLS.
			Reference : This document -- draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp (MPLS WG
			document).
			Port Number : TBD2 -- To be assigned by IANA.
	8. Contributors		8. Contributors
	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
	9. Acknowledgements		9. 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,
	George Swallow, Loa Andersson, Ross Callon, Vivek Kumar, Weiguo Hao,		George Swallow, Loa Andersson, Ross Callon, Vivek Kumar, Weiguo Hao,
	Mark Szczesniak, Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong for their valuable		Mark Szczesniak, Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong for their valuable
	comments andsuggestions on this document. Thanks to Daniel King,		comments and suggestions on this document. Thanks to Daniel King,
	Gregory Mirsky and Eric Osborne for their valuable reviews on this		Gregory Mirsky and Eric Osborne for their valuable reviews on this
	document.		document. Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his conscientious AD
			review and insightful suggestion of using DTLS for securing the
			MPLS-in-UDP tunnels. Thanks to Charlie Kaufman for his Secdir
			review of this document.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. 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.
	[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,		[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
	August 1980.		August 1980.
	[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.
	10.2. Informative References
	[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating		[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
	MPLS in IP or GRE", RFC4023, March 2005.		MPLS in IP or GRE", RFC4023, March 2005.
			[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
			Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
			[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
			Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
			10.2. Informative References
	[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.
	[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "UDP		[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "UDP
	Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC6935,		Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC6935,
	Feburary 2013.		Feburary 2013.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 31		skipping to change at page 10, line 19
	[RFC6936] 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",
	RFC6936, Feburary 2013.		RFC6936, Feburary 2013.
	[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black,		[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black,
	"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS		"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
	Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC2474, December		Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC2474, December
	1998.		1998.
	[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label		[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
	for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in		for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation
	Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.		in Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.
	[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and		[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
	L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",		Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
	RFC 6790, November 2012.		January 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
	skipping to change at page 9, line 4		skipping to change at page 10, line 39
	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
	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 7200-12 Kit Creek Road		Cisco Systems
			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
End of changes. 32 change blocks.
	98 lines changed or deleted		180 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/