draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-04.txt   rfc8596.txt 
MPLS Working Group A. Malis Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Malis
Internet-Draft S. Bryant Request for Comments: 8596 S. Bryant
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies Category: Informational Futurewei
Expires: September 22, 2019 J. Halpern ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Halpern
Ericsson Ericsson
W. Henderickx W. Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
March 21, 2019 June 2019
MPLS Transport Encapsulation For The SFC NSH MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function Chaining (SFC)
draft-ietf-mpls-sfc-encapsulation-04 Network Service Header (NSH)
Abstract Abstract
This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) This document describes how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF)
Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the Label (similar to a pseudowire label or VPN label) to indicate the
presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header presence of a Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header
(NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the packet original packet/ (NSH) between an MPLS label stack and the NSH original packet/frame.
frame. This allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between This allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs
SFFs over an MPLS network, and to select one of multiple SFFs in the over an MPLS network. The label is also used to select between
destination MPLS node. multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. published for informational purposes.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are candidates for any level of Internet
Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2019. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8596.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology ................................................3
2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label ...........................3
2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node . . . . 4 2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node ..........4
2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node . . . . . . 5 2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node ...............5
3. Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations ......................5
4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) 4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Considerations ..................................................6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations .............................................6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Security Considerations .........................................6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. References ......................................................7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.1. Normative References .......................................7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7.2. Informative References .....................................8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Acknowledgements ...................................................9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Authors' Addresses .................................................9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
As discussed in [RFC8300], a number of transport encapsulations for As discussed in [RFC8300], a number of transport encapsulations for
the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH) the Service Function Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)
already exist, such as Ethernet, UDP, GRE, and others. already exist, such as Ethernet, UDP, GRE, and others.
This document describes an MPLS transport encapsulation for the NSH This document describes an MPLS transport encapsulation for the NSH
and how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) [RFC7665] Label to and how to use a Service Function Forwarder (SFF) [RFC7665] Label to
indicate the presence of the NSH in the MPLS packet payload. This indicate the presence of the NSH in the MPLS packet payload. This
allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs in an allows SFC packets using the NSH to be forwarded between SFFs in an
MPLS transport network, where MPLS is used to interconnect the MPLS transport network, where MPLS is used to interconnect the
network nodes that contain one or more SFFs. The label is also used network nodes that contain one or more SFFs. The label is also used
to select between multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node. to select between multiple SFFs in the destination MPLS node.
This encapsulation is equivalent from an SFC perspective to other From an SFC perspective, this encapsulation is equivalent to other
transport encapsulations of packets using the NSH. This can be transport encapsulations of packets using the NSH. This can be
illustrated by adding an additional line to the example of a next-hop illustrated by adding an additional line to the example of a next-hop
SPI/SI-to-network overlay network locator mapping in Table 1 of SPI / SI-to-network ("SPI" and "SI" stand for "Service Path
[RFC8300]: Identifier" and "Service Index") overlay network locator mapping in
Table 1 of [RFC8300]:
+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+ +------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| SPI | SI | Next Hop(s) | Transport Encapsulation | | SPI | SI | Next Hop(s) | Transport Encapsulation |
+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+ +------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
| 25 | 220 | Label 5467 | MPLS | | 25 | 220 | Label 5467 | MPLS |
+------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+ +------+------+---------------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: Extension to RFC 8300 Table 1 Table 1: Extension to Table 1 in RFC 8300
SFF Labels are similar to other service labels at the bottom of an SFF Labels are similar to other service labels at the bottom of an
MPLS label stack that denote the contents of the MPLS payload being MPLS label stack that denote the contents of the MPLS payload being
other than a normally routed IP packet, such as a layer 2 pseudowire, other than a normally routed IP packet, such as a Layer 2 pseudowire,
an IP packet that is routed in a VPN context with a private address, an IP packet that is routed in a VPN context with a private address,
or an Ethernet virtual private wire service. or an Ethernet virtual private wire service.
This informational document follows well-established MPLS procedures This informational document follows well-established MPLS procedures
and does not require any actions by IANA or any new protocol and does not require any actions by IANA or any new protocol
extensions. extensions.
Note that using the MPLS label stack as a replacement for the SFC Note that using the MPLS label stack as a replacement for the SFC
NSH, covering use cases that do not require per-packet metadata, is NSH, covering use cases that do not require per-packet metadata, is
described elsewhere [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc]. described in [RFC8595].
1.1. Terminology 1.1. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label 2. MPLS Encapsulation Using an SFF Label
The encapsulation is a standard MPLS label stack [RFC3032] with an The encapsulation is a standard MPLS label stack [RFC3032] with an
SFF Label at the bottom of the stack, followed by a NSH as defined by SFF Label at the bottom of the stack, followed by an NSH as defined
[RFC8300] and the NSH original packet/frame. by [RFC8300] and the NSH original packet/frame.
Much like a pseudowire label, an SFF Label MUST be allocated by the Much like a pseudowire label, an SFF Label MUST be allocated by the
downstream receiver of the NSH from its per-platform label space, downstream receiver of the NSH from its per-platform label space,
since the meaning of the label is identical independent of which since the meaning of the label is identical, independent of which
incoming interface it is received [RFC3031]. incoming interface it is received from [RFC3031].
If a receiving node supports more than one SFF (i.e., more than one If a receiving node supports more than one SFF (i.e., more than one
SFC forwarding instance), then the SFF Label can be used to select SFC forwarding instance), then the SFF Label can be used to select
the proper SFF, by having the receiving node advertise more than one the proper SFF, by having the receiving node advertise more than one
SFF Label to its upstream sending nodes as appropriate. SFF Label to its upstream sending nodes as appropriate.
The method used by the downstream receiving node to advertise SFF The method used by the downstream receiving node to advertise SFF
Labels to the upstream sending node is out of scope of this document. Labels to the upstream sending node is out of scope for this
document. That said, a number of methods are possible, such as via a
That said, a number of methods are possible, such as via a protocol protocol exchange, or via a controller that manages both the sender
exchange, or via a controller that manages both the sender and the and the receiver using the Network Configuration Protocol
receiver using NETCONF/YANG, BGP, PCEP, etc. One such BGP-based (NETCONF) / YANG, BGP, the Path Computation Element Communication
method has already been defined, and is documented in Protocol (PCEP), etc. One such BGP-based method has already been
[I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane]. This does not constrain the defined and is documented in [BGP-NSH-SFC]. This does not constrain
further definition of other such advertisement methods in the future. the further definition of other such advertisement methods in the
future.
While the SFF label will usually be at the bottom of the label stack, While the SFF Label will usually be at the bottom of the label stack,
there may be cases where there are additional label stack entries there may be cases where there are additional label stack entries
beneath it. For example, when an Associated Channel Header (ACH) is beneath it. For example, when an Associated Channel Header (ACH) is
carried that applies to the SFF, a Generic Associated Channel Label carried that applies to the SFF, a Generic Associated Channel Label
(GAL) [RFC5586] will be in the label stack below the SFF. Similarly, (GAL) [RFC5586] will be in the label stack below the SFF. Similarly,
an Entropy Label Indicator/Entropy Label (ELI/EL) [RFC6790] may be an Entropy Label Indicator / Entropy Label (ELI/EL) [RFC6790] may be
carried below the SFF in the label stack. This is identical to the carried below the SFF in the label stack. This is identical to the
situation with VPN labels. situation with VPN labels.
This document does not define a use for the Traffic Class (TC) field This document does not define the setting of the Traffic Class (TC)
[RFC5462] (formerly known as the Experimental Use (EXP) bits field [RFC5462] (formerly known as the Experimental Use (EXP) bits
[RFC3032]) in the SFF Label. [RFC3032]) in the SFF Label.
2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node 2.1. MPLS Label Stack Construction at the Sending Node
When one SFF wishes to send an SFC packet with a NSH to another SFF When one SFF wishes to send an SFC packet with an NSH to another SFF
over an MPLS transport network, a label stack needs to be constructed over an MPLS transport network, a label stack needs to be constructed
by the MPLS node that contains the sending SFF in order to transport by the MPLS node that contains the sending SFF in order to transport
the packet to the destination MPLS node that contains the receiving the packet to the destination MPLS node that contains the receiving
SFF. The label stack is constructed as follows: SFF. The label stack is constructed as follows:
1. Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination 1. Push zero or more labels that are interpreted by the destination
MPLS node on to the packet, such as the Generic Associated MPLS node on to the packet, such as the GAL [RFC5586] (see
Channel [RFC5586] label (see Section 4). The TTL for these Section 4). The TTL for these labels is set according to the
labels is set according to the relevant standards that define relevant standards that define these labels.
these labels.
2. Push the SFF Label to identify the desired SFF in the receiving 2. Push the SFF Label to identify the desired SFF in the receiving
MPLS node. The TTL for this MPLS label MUST be set to one to MPLS node. The TTL for this MPLS label MUST be set to 1 to avoid
avoid mis-forwarding. mis-forwarding.
3. Push zero or more additional labels such that (a) the resulting 3. Push zero or more additional labels such that (a) the resulting
label stack will cause the packet to be transported to the label stack will cause the packet to be transported to the
destination MPLS node, and (b) when the packet arrives at the destination MPLS node, and (b) when the packet arrives at the
destination node, either: destination node, either:
* the SFF Label will be at the top of the label stack (this is * the SFF Label will be at the top of the label stack (this is
typically the case when penultimate hop popping is used at the typically the case when penultimate hop popping is used at the
penultimate node, or the source and destination nodes are penultimate node), or
direct neighbors), or
* as a part of normal MPLS processing, the SFF Label becomes the * as a part of normal MPLS processing, the SFF Label becomes the
top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded to top label in the stack before the packet is forwarded to
another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher another node and before the packet is dispatched to a higher
layer. layer.
The TTL for these labels is set by configuration, or set to the The TTL for these labels is set by configuration or set to the
defaults for normal MPLS operation in the network. defaults for normal MPLS operation in the network.
2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node 2.2. SFF Label Processing at the Destination Node
The destination MPLS node performs a lookup on the SFF label to The destination MPLS node performs a lookup on the SFF Label to
retrieve the next-hop context between the SFF and SF, e.g. to retrieve the next-hop context between the SFF and SF, e.g., to
retrieve the destination MAC address in the case where native retrieve the destination Media Access Control (MAC) address in the
Ethernet encapsulation is used between SFF and SF. How the next-hop case where native Ethernet encapsulation is used between the SFF and
context is populated is out of the scope of this document. SF. How the next-hop context is populated is out of scope for this
document.
The receiving SFF SHOULD check that the received SFF label has a TTL The receiving SFF SHOULD check that the received SFF Label has a TTL
of 1 upon receipt. Any other values indicate a likely error of 1 upon receipt. Any other values indicate a likely error
condition and SHOULD result in discarding the packet. condition and SHOULD result in discarding the packet.
The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels The receiving MPLS node then pops the SFF Label (and any labels
beneath it) so that the destination SFF receives the SFC packet with beneath it) so that the destination SFF receives the SFC packet with
the NSH is at the top of the packet. the NSH at the top of the packet.
3. Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations 3. Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Considerations
As discussed in [RFC4928] and [RFC7325], there are ECMP As discussed in [RFC4928] and [RFC7325], there are ECMP
considerations for payloads carried by MPLS. considerations for payloads carried by MPLS.
Many existing routers use deep packet inspection to examine the Many existing routers use deep packet inspection to examine the
payload of an MPLS packet, and if the first nibble of the payload is payload of an MPLS packet. If the first nibble of the payload is
equal to 0x4 or 0x6, these routers (sometimes incorrectly, as equal to 0x4 or 0x6, these routers (sometimes incorrectly, as
discussed in [RFC4928]) assume that the payload is IPv4 or IPv6 discussed in [RFC4928]) assume that the payload is IPv4 or IPv6,
respectively, and as a result, perform ECMP load balancing based on respectively and, as a result, perform ECMP load balancing based on
(presumed) information present in IP/TCP/UDP payload headers or in a (presumed) information present in IP/TCP/UDP payload headers or in a
combination of MPLS label stack and (presumed) IP/TCP/UDP payload combination of MPLS label stack and (presumed) IP/TCP/UDP payload
headers in the packet. headers in the packet.
For SFC, ECMP may or may not be desirable. To prevent ECMP when it For SFC, ECMP may or may not be desirable. To prevent ECMP when it
is not desired, the NSH Base Header was carefully constructed so that is not desired, the NSH Base Header was carefully constructed so that
the NSH could not look like IPv4 or IPv6 based on its first nibble. the NSH could not look like IPv4 or IPv6 based on its first nibble.
See Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] for further details. Accordingly, the See Section 2.2 of [RFC8300] for further details. Accordingly, the
default behavior for MPLS-encapsulated SFC is to not use ECMP. default behavior for MPLS-encapsulated SFC is to not use ECMP other
than by using entropy derived from the MPLS label stack. This
results in all packets going to the same SF taking the same path
regardless of the use of ECMP in the network.
If ECMP is desired when SFC is used with an MPLS transport network, If ECMP is desired when SFC is used with an MPLS transport network,
there are two possible options, Entropy [RFC6790] and Flow-Aware there are two possible options: entropy labels [RFC6790] and
Transport [RFC6391] labels. A recommendation between these options, flow-aware transport [RFC6391] labels. A recommendation regarding
and their proper placement in the label stack, is for future study. choosing between these options, and their proper placement in the
label stack, is left for future study.
4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Considerations 4. Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Considerations
OAM at the SFC Layer is handled by SFC-defined mechanisms [RFC8300]. OAM at the SFC layer is handled by SFC-defined mechanisms [RFC8300].
However, OAM may be required at the MPLS transport layer. If so, However, OAM may be required at the MPLS transport layer. If so,
then standard MPLS-layer OAM mechanisms may be used at the transport then standard MPLS-layer OAM mechanisms such as the GAL [RFC5586] may
label layer (the labels above the SFF label). be used at the transport label layer.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This document does not request any actions from IANA. This document has no IANA actions.
Editorial note to RFC Editor: This section may be removed at your
discretion.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This document describes a method for transporting SFC packets using This document describes a method for transporting SFC packets using
the NSH over an MPLS transport network. It follows well-established the NSH over an MPLS transport network. It follows well-established
MPLS procedures in widespread operational use and does not define any MPLS procedures in widespread operational use. It does not define
new protocol elements or allocate any new code points, and is no more any new protocol elements or allocate any new code points, and it is
or less secure than carrying any other protocol over MPLS. To the no more or less secure than carrying any other protocol over MPLS.
MPLS network, the NSH and its contents is simply an opaque payload. To the MPLS network, the NSH and its contents are simply an opaque
payload.
In addition, the security considerations in [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc] also
apply to this document.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard, Eric Rosen, Med
Boucadair, Sasha Vainshtein, Jeff Tantsura, Anoop Ghanwani, John
Drake, Loa Andersson, Carlos Pignataro, Christian Hopps, and Benjamin
Kaduk for their reviews and comments.
8. References In addition, the security considerations in [RFC8595] also apply to
this document.
8.1. Normative References 7. References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfc] 7.1. Normative References
Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", draft-
ietf-mpls-sfc-07 (work in progress), March 2019.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462,
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>. February 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function [RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665, Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed., [RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300, "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
8.2. Informative References [RFC8595] Farrel, A., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "An MPLS-Based
Forwarding Plane for Service Function Chaining", RFC 8595,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8595, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8595>.
[I-D.ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane] 7.2. Informative References
[BGP-NSH-SFC]
Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L. Farrel, A., Drake, J., Rosen, E., Uttaro, J., and L.
Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC", draft-ietf-bess- Jalil, "BGP Control Plane for NSH SFC", Work in Progress,
nsh-bgp-control-plane-09 (work in progress), March 2019. draft-ietf-bess-nsh-bgp-control-plane-11, May 2019.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal [RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128, Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007, RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
skipping to change at page 8, line 21 skipping to change at page 9, line 5
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and [RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding", L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., [RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Ed., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A.,
and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and and C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and
Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325, Performance Requirements", RFC 7325, DOI 10.17487/RFC7325,
August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>. August 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7325>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Jim Guichard, Eric Rosen, Med
Boucadair, Alexander (Sasha) Vainshtein, Jeff Tantsura, Anoop
Ghanwani, John Drake, Loa Andersson, Carlos Pignataro, Christian
Hopps, and Benjamin Kaduk for their reviews and comments.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies Futurewei
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Huawei Technologies Futurewei
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Joel M. Halpern Joel M. Halpern
Ericsson Ericsson
Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com Email: joel.halpern@ericsson.com
Wim Henderickx Wim Henderickx
Nokia Nokia
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
125 lines changed or deleted 128 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/