draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-05.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: June 2014 December 12, 2013 Expires: July 2014 January 24, 2014
Encapsulating MPLS in UDP Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-04 draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-05
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, called This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, called
MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol). MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol). Note that the MPLS-in-UDP
encapsulation technology MUST only be deployed within a service
provider network or networks of an adjacent set of co-operating
service providers where the congestion control is not a concern.
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 June 12, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 24, 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 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
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
1.3. Application Statements ................................. 4
2. Terminology ................................................. 4 2. Terminology ................................................. 4
3. Encapsulation in UDP......................................... 4 3. Encapsulation in UDP ........................................ 4
4. Processing Procedures ....................................... 6 4. Processing Procedures ....................................... 6
5. Congestion Considerations ................................... 6 5. Congestion Considerations ................................... 7
6. Security Considerations ..................................... 7 6. Security Considerations ..................................... 7
7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8 7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 8
8. Contributors ................................................ 8 8. Contributors ................................................ 9
9. Acknowledgements ............................................ 9 9. Acknowledgements ............................................ 9
10. References ................................................. 9 10. References ................................................. 9
10.1. Normative References .................................. 9 10.1. Normative References .................................. 9
10.2. Informative References ................................ 9 10.2. Informative References ............................... 10
Authors' Addresses ............................................ 10 Authors' Addresses ............................................ 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, i.e. This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, i.e.
MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol), which is applicable in some MPLS-in-UDP (User Datagram Protocol), which is applicable in some
circumstances where IP-based encapsulation for MPLS is required and circumstances where IP-based encapsulation for MPLS is required and
further fine-grained load balancing of MPLS packets over IP further fine-grained load balancing of MPLS packets over IP
networks over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation networks over Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation
Groups (LAG) is required as well. There are already IP-based Groups (LAG) is required as well. There are already IP-based
encapsulations for MPLS that allow for fine-grained load balancing encapsulations for MPLS that allow for fine-grained load balancing
skipping to change at page 3, line 38 skipping to change at page 3, line 38
either manually configured on each LSR or be dynamically advertised either manually configured on each LSR or be dynamically advertised
in manners that are outside the scope of this document. in manners that are outside the scope of this document.
Similarly, the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format defined in this Similarly, the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format defined in this
document by itself cannot ensure the integrity and privacy of data document by itself cannot ensure the integrity and privacy of data
packets being transported through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and packets being transported through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and
cannot enable the tunnel decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel cannot enable the tunnel decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel
encapsulator. Therefore, in the case where any of the above encapsulator. Therefore, in the case where any of the above
security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in-UDP SHOULD be secured security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in-UDP SHOULD be secured
with IPsec [RFC4301] or DTLS [RFC6347]. For more details, please with IPsec [RFC4301] or DTLS [RFC6347]. For more details, please
see section 6 of Security Considerations. see Section 6 of Security Considerations.
1.1. Existing Encapsulations 1.1. Existing Encapsulations
Currently, there are several IP-based encapsulations for MPLS such Currently, there are several IP-based encapsulations for MPLS such
as MPLS-in-IP, MPLS-in-GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation) as MPLS-in-IP, MPLS-in-GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation)
[RFC4023], and MPLS-in-L2TPv3 (Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - [RFC4023], and MPLS-in-L2TPv3 (Layer Two Tunneling Protocol -
Version 3) [RFC4817]. In all these methods, the IP addresses can be Version 3) [RFC4817]. In all these methods, the IP 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]. However, there Flow Label can be used for ECMP and LAGs [RFC6438]. However, there
is no such entropy field in the IPv4 header. 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 as described in [RFC5640]. For this, core load-balancing key as described in [RFC5640]. For this,
routers need to understand these fields in the context of being intermediate routers need to understand these fields in the context
used as load-balancing keys. of being used as load-balancing keys.
1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation 1.2. Motivations for MPLS-in-UDP Encapsulation
Currently, most 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 ECMPs and/or of distributing IP traffic "microflows" [RFC2474] over ECMPs and/or
LAG based on the hash of the five-tuple of User Datagram Protocol LAG based on the hash of the five-tuple of User Datagram Protocol
(UDP)[RFC768] and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packets (i.e., (UDP)[RFC768] and Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) packets (i.e.,
source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination source IP address, destination IP address, source port, destination
port, and protocol). By encapsulating the MPLS packets into an UDP port, and protocol). By encapsulating the MPLS packets into an UDP
tunnel and using the source port of the UDP header as an entropy tunnel and using the source port of the UDP header as an entropy
field, the existing load-balancing capability as mentioned above field, the existing load-balancing capability as mentioned above
can be leveraged to provide fine-grained load-balancing of MPLS can be leveraged to provide fine-grained load-balancing of MPLS
traffic over IP networks. traffic over IP networks.
1.3. Application Statements
The MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation technology MUST only be deployed
within a Service Provider (SP) network or networks of an adjacent
set of co-operating SPs where the congestion control is not a
concern, rather than over the Internet where the congestion control
is a must. Furthermore, packet filters should be added so as to
prevent MPLS-in-UDP packets from escaping from the service provider
networks due to misconfiguation or packet errors.
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
MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format is shown as follows: MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation format is shown as follows:
skipping to change at page 5, line 10 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ 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. What algorithm is generated by the encapsulator to uniquely identify a
actually used by the ingress PE router to generate an flow. What constitutes a flow is locally determined by
entropy value is outside the scope of this doc. In the the encapsulator and therefore is outside the scope of
case where the flow does not need entropy, this field this document. What algorithm is actually used by the
SHOULD be set to a randomly selected constant value to encapsulator to generate an entropy value is outside
avoid packet reordering. the scope of this document as well. In the case where
the tunnel does not need entropy, this field of all
packets belonging to a given flow SHOULD be set to a
randomly selected constant value so as to avoid packet
reordering.
Destination Port of UDP Destination Port of UDP
This field is set to a value allocated by This field is set to a value (TBD1) allocated by IANA
IANA) indicating that the UDP tunnel payload is an MPLS to indicate that the UDP tunnel payload is an MPLS
packet using MPLS-in-UDP (TBD1). packet.
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 [RFC768]. To simplify the current UDP specification [RFC768]. In the IPv4 UDP
operation on egress PE routers, this field is encapsulation case, this field is RECOMMENDED to be set
RECOMMENDED to be set to zero in IPv4 UDP encapsulation to zero. In the IPv6 UDP encapsulation case, this field
case. In the IPv6 UDP encapsulation case, if SHOULD NOT be set to zero. If the UDP checksum needs to
appropriate according to the requirements defined in be disabled for performance or implementation reasons,
[RFC6935] [RFC6936], this field is also RECOMMENDED to the considerations described in [RFC6935] [RFC6936]
be set to zero. Specifically, if the MPLS payload is MUST be examined.
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 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
[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 the encapsulator, the entropy value would be generated by the
ingress PE router and then be filled in the Source Port field of encapsulator and then be filled in the Source Port field of the UDP
the UDP header. The Destination Port field is set to a value (TBD1 header. The Destination Port field is set to a value (TBD1)
for MPLS-in-UDP or TBD2 for MPLS-in-UDP with DTLS) allocated by allocated by IANA to indicate that the UDP tunnel payload is an
IANA to indicate that the UDP tunnel payload is an MPLS packet. As MPLS packet. As for whether the top label in the MPLS label stack
for whether the top label in the MPLS label stack is downstream- is downstream-assigned or upstream-assigned, it SHOULD be
assigned or upstream-assigned, it SHOULD be determined based on the determined based on the tunnel destination IP address. That is to
tunnel destination IP address. That is to say, if the destination say, if the destination IP address is a multicast address, the top
IP address is a multicast address, the top label SHOULD be label SHOULD be upstream-assigned, otherwise if the destination IP
upstream-assigned, otherwise if the destination IP address is a address is a unicast address, it SHOULD be downstream-assigned.
unicast address, it SHOULD be downstream-assigned.
As such, P routers, upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, As such, intermediate routers, upon receiving these UDP
could balance these packets based on the hash of the five-tuple of encapsulated packets, could balance these packets based on the hash
UDP packets. of the five-tuple of UDP packets.
Upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, egress PE routers Upon receiving these UDP encapsulated packets, the decapsulator
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
MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation formats SHOULD be followed. MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE encapsulation formats SHOULD be followed.
5. Congestion Considerations 5. Congestion Considerations
MPLS can carry a number of different protocols as payloads. When an Since the MPLS-in-UDP encapsulation causes MPLS packets to be
MPLS/UDP flow carries IP-based traffic, the aggregate traffic is forwarded through "UDP tunnels", the congestion control guidelines
assumed to be TCP friendly due to the congestion control mechanisms for UDP tunnels as defined in Section 3.1.3 of [RFC5405] SHOULD be
used by the payload traffic. Packet loss will trigger the necessary followed. Specifically, as stated in Section 3.1.3 of [RFC5405],
reduction in offered load, and no additional congestion avoidance "some bulk transfer applications may choose not to implement any
action is necessary. When an MPLS/UDP flow carries payload traffic congestion control mechanism and instead rely on transmitting
that is not known to be TCP friendly and the flow runs across an across reserved path capacity. This might be an acceptable choice
unprovisioned path that could potentially become congested, the for a subset of restricted networking environments, but is by no
application that uses the encapsulation specified in this document means a safe practice for operation in the Internet."Given the
MUST employ additional mechanisms to ensure that the offered load fact that the MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in-IP [RFC4023] encapsulation
is reduced appropriately during periods of congestion. This is not technologies have been successfully deployed within a SP network or
necessary in the case of an unprovisioned path through an over- networks of an adjacent set of co-operating SPs which is a
provisioned network, where the potential for congestion is avoided restricted network environment without any congestion control
through the over-provisioning of the network. mechanism and the fact that the current MPLS technology couldn't
provide congestion control without major changes, the MPLS-in-UDP
encapsulation MUST only be deployed within a SP network or networks
of an adjacent set of co-operating SPs as well.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Just like other IP-based encapsulations of MPLS, the MPLS-in-UDP The security problems faced with the MPLS-in-UDP tunnel are exactly
encapsulation format defined in this document by itself cannot the same as those faced with MPLS-in-IP and MPLS-in-GRE tunnels
ensure the integrity and privacy of data packets being transported [RFC4023]. In other words,, the MPLS-in-UDP tunnel as defined in
through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnels and cannot enable the tunnel this document by itself cannot ensure the integrity and privacy of
decapsulators to authenticate the tunnel encapsulator. In the case data packets being transported through the MPLS-in-UDP tunnel and
where any of the above security issues is concerned, the MPLS-in- cannot enable the tunnel decapsulator to authenticate the tunnel
UDP tunnels SHOULD be secured with IPsec or DTLS. If the tunnel is encapsulator. In the case where any of the above security issues is
secured with IPsec, the UDP header would not be visible to P concerned, the MPLS-in-UDP tunnel SHOULD be secured with IPsec or
routers anymore. As a result, the meaning of adopting MPLS-in-UDP DTLS. IPsec was designed as a network security mechanism and
encapsulation format as an alternative to MPLS-in-GRE and MPLS-in- therefore it resides at the network layer. As such, if the tunnel
IP encapsulation formats is lost. If DTLS is used, the destination is secured with IPsec, the UDP header would not be visible to
port of the UDP header will be filled with a value (TBD2) intermediate routers anymore in either IPsec tunnel or transport
indicating MPLS with DTLS and the source port can still be used as mode. As a result, the meaning of adopting the MPLS-in-UDP tunnel
an entropy field. as an alternative to the MPLS-in-GRE or MPLS-in-IP tunnel is lost.
By comparison, DTLS is better suited for application security and
can better preserve network and transport layer protocol
information. Specifically, if DTLS is used, the destination port of
the UDP header will be filled with a value (TBD2) indicating MPLS
with DTLS and the source port can still be used as an entropy field
for load-sharing purposes.
If the tunnels are not secured with IPsec or DTLS, some other If the tunnel is not secured with IPsec or DTLS, some other method
method should be used to ensure that packets are decapsulated and should be used to ensure that packets are decapsulated and
forwarded by the tunnel tail only if those packets were forwarded by the tunnel tail only if those packets were
encapsulated by the tunnel head. If the tunnel lies entirely within encapsulated by the tunnel head. If the tunnel lies entirely within
a single administrative domain, address filtering at the boundaries a single administrative domain, address filtering at the boundaries
can be used to ensure that no packet with the IP source address of 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 a tunnel endpoint or with the IP destination address of a tunnel
endpoint can enter the domain from outside. However, when the endpoint can enter the domain from outside. However, when the
tunnel head and the tunnel tail are not in the same administrative tunnel head and the tunnel tail are not in the same administrative
domain, this may become difficult, and filtering based on the domain, this may become difficult, and filtering based on the
destination address can even become impossible if the packets must destination address can even become impossible if the packets must
traverse the public Internet. Sometimes only source address traverse the public Internet. Sometimes only source address
skipping to change at page 8, line 28 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
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 : TBD1 -- To be assigned by IANA. Port Number : TBD1 -- To be assigned by IANA.
One UDP destination port number indicating MPLS with DTLS needs to One UDP destination port number indicating MPLS with DTLS needs to
be allocated by IANA. be allocated by IANA.
Service Name : MPLS-in-UDP with DTLS Service Name : MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS
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 with DTLS. Description : Encapsulate MPLS packets in UDP tunnels with DTLS.
Reference : This document -- draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp (MPLS WG Reference : This document -- draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp (MPLS WG
document). document).
Port Number : TBD2 -- To be assigned by IANA. Port Number : TBD2 -- To be assigned by IANA.
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
skipping to change at page 9, line 9 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
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, Stewart
Mark Szczesniak, Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong for their valuable Bryant, Wen Zhang, Curtis Villamizar, Joel M. Halpern, Scott Brim,
comments and suggestions on this document. Thanks to Daniel King, Alia Atlas, Alexander Vainshtein, Joel Jaeggli, Edward Crabbe, Lars
Gregory Mirsky and Eric Osborne for their valuable reviews on this Eggert, Joe Touch, Lloyd Wood, Weiguo Hao, Mark Szczesniak,
Zhenxiao Liu and Xing Tong for their valuable comments and
suggestions on this document. Thanks to Daniel King, Gregory Mirsky
and Eric Osborne for their valuable MPLS-RT reviews on this
document. Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his conscientious AD document. Special thanks to Adrian Farrel for his conscientious AD
review and insightful suggestion of using DTLS for securing the review and insightful suggestion of using DTLS for securing the
MPLS-in-UDP tunnels. Thanks to Charlie Kaufman for his Secdir MPLS-in-UDP tunnels. Thanks to Charlie Kaufman for his SecDir
review of this document. review of this document. Thanks to Nevil Brownlee for the OPSDir
review of this document. Thanks to Roni Even for the Gen-ART review
of this document. Thanks to Pearl Liang for the IANA review of this
documents.
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.
skipping to change at page 9, line 45 skipping to change at page 10, line 22
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012. Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
10.2. Informative References 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", RFC4817, 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.
[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.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage
Guidelines for Application Designers", RFC 5405, November
2008.
[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 for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation
in Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011. in Tunnels", RFC 6438, November 2011.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The [RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
95 lines changed or deleted 120 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/