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/