draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01.txt   draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02.txt 
Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed. Network Working Group S. Kini, Ed.
Internet-Draft Ericsson Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Informational K. Kompella Intended status: Informational K. Kompella
Expires: April 2, 2015 Juniper Expires: April 28, 2015 Juniper
S. Sivabalan S. Sivabalan
Cisco Cisco
S. Litkowski S. Litkowski
Orange Orange
R. Shakir R. Shakir
B.T. B.T.
X. Xu X. Xu
Huawei Huawei
W. Hendrickx W. Hendrickx
Alcatel-Lucent Alcatel-Lucent
J. Tantsura J. Tantsura
Ericsson Ericsson
September 29, 2014 October 25, 2014
Entropy labels for source routed stacked tunnels Entropy labels for source routed stacked tunnels
draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-01 draft-kini-mpls-spring-entropy-label-02
Abstract Abstract
Source routed tunnel stacking is a technique that can be leveraged to Source routed tunnel stacking is a technique that can be leveraged to
provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled set of provide a method to steer a packet through a controlled set of
segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label Switching segments. This can be applied to the Multi Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used in MPLS to (MPLS) data plane. Entropy label (EL) is a technique used in MPLS to
improve load balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs improve load balancing. This document examines and describes how ELs
are to be applied to source routed stacked tunnels. are to be applied to source routed stacked tunnels.
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 April 2, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 26 skipping to change at page 2, line 26
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Abbreviations and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Use-case for multipath load balancing in source stacked 3. Use-case for multipath load balancing in source stacked
tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Options considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 5 5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels . . . . . 6
5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. A re-usable EL for a stack of tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3.1. EL at top of stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.4. ELs at readable label stack depths . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The source routed stacked tunnels paradigm is leveraged by techniques The source routed stacked tunnels paradigm is leveraged by techniques
such as Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing] to such as Segment Routing (SR) [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing] to
steer a packet through a set of segments. This can be directly steer a packet through a set of segments. This can be directly
applied to the MPLS data plane, but it has implications on label applied to the MPLS data plane, but it has implications on label
stack depth. stack depth.
Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in Clarifying statements on label stack depth have been provided in
skipping to change at page 3, line 18 skipping to change at page 3, line 18
Entropy label (EL) [RFC6790] is a technique used in the MPLS data Entropy label (EL) [RFC6790] is a technique used in the MPLS data
plane to provide entropy for load balancing. When using LSP plane to provide entropy for load balancing. When using LSP
hierarchies there are implications on how [RFC6790] should be hierarchies there are implications on how [RFC6790] should be
applied. One such issue is addressed by applied. One such issue is addressed by
[I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls] but that is when different [I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls] but that is when different
levels of the hierarchy are created at different LSRs. The current levels of the hierarchy are created at different LSRs. The current
document addresses the case where the hierarchy is created at a document addresses the case where the hierarchy is created at a
single LSR as required by source stacked tunnels. single LSR as required by source stacked tunnels.
A use-case requiring load balancing with source stacked tunnels is A use-case requiring load balancing with source stacked tunnels is
given in Section 3. A recommended solution is described in given in Section 3. A recommended solution is described in Section 4
Section 4. Options that were considered to arrive at the recommended keeping in consideration the limitations of implementations when
solution are documented for historical purposes in Section 5. applying [RFC6790] to deeper label stacks. Options that were
considered to arrive at the recommended solution are documented for
historical purposes in Section 5.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Although this document is not a protocol specification, the use of
this language clarifies the instructions to protocol designers
producing solutions that satisfy the requirements set out in this
document.
2. Abbreviations and Terminology 2. Abbreviations and Terminology
EL - Entropy Label EL - Entropy Label
ELI - Entropy Label Identifier ELI - Entropy Label Identifier
ELC - Entropy Label Capability ELC - Entropy Label Capability
SR - Segment Routing SR - Segment Routing
ECMP - Equal Cost Multi Paths ECMP - Equal Cost Multi Paths
MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching
SID - Segment Identifier SID - Segment Identifier
RLD - Readable Label Depth
OAM - Operation, Administration and Maintenance
3. Use-case for multipath load balancing in source stacked tunnels 3. Use-case for multipath load balancing in source stacked tunnels
Source stacked tunnels have several use-cases, one of which is Source stacked tunnels have several use-cases, one of which is
service chaining [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]. service chaining [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases].
Consider the service-chaining network in Figure 1 that has MPLS as Consider the service-chaining network in Figure 1 that has MPLS as
the data plane. The requirement of the use-case is to create a LSP the data plane. The requirement of the use-case is to create a LSP
from source LSR S, apply the services S1, S2 and finally terminate from source LSR S, apply the services S1, S2 and finally terminate
the LSP at destination LSR D. Local load balancing is required the LSP at destination LSR D. Local load balancing is required
across the parallel links between P1 and S1. Local load balancing is across the parallel links between P1 and S1. Local load balancing is
also required between the ECMP paths from S1 to S2 i.e., between the also required between the ECMP paths from S1 to S2 i.e., between the
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 33
Figure 1: Service chaining use-case Figure 1: Service chaining use-case
4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING 4. Recommended EL solution for SPRING
The solution described in this section follows [RFC6790]. The solution described in this section follows [RFC6790].
An LSR may have a limitation in its ability to read and process the An LSR may have a limitation in its ability to read and process the
label stack in order to do multipath load balancing. This limitation label stack in order to do multipath load balancing. This limitation
expressed in terms of the number of label stack entries that the LSR expressed in terms of the number of label stack entries that the LSR
can read and is henceforth referred to as the Readable Label Depth can read is henceforth referred to as the Readable Label Depth (RLD)
(RLD) capability. In order for the EL to occur within the RLD of capability of that LSR. If an EL does not occur within the RLD of an
LSRs along the path corresponding to a label stack, multiple <ELI, LSR in the label stack of the MPLS packet that it receives, then it
EL> pairs MAY be inserted. The recommendations for inserting <ELI, would lead to poor load balancing at that LSR. The RLD of an LSR is
EL> pairs are: a characteristic of the forwarding plane of that LSR's implementation
and determining it is outside the scope of this document.
o <ELI, EL> pairs MUST be inserted below those labels that are In order for the EL to occur within the RLD of LSRs along the path
advertised with ELC. corresponding to a label stack, multiple <ELI, EL> pairs MAY be
inserted in the label stack as long as the labels below which they
are inserted are entropy label capable. The LSR that inserts <ELI,
EL> pairs MAY have limitations on the number of such pairs that it
can insert and also the depth at which it can insert them. If due to
any limitation, the inserted ELs are at positions such that an LSR
along the path receives an MPLS packet without an EL in the label
stack within that LSR's RLD, then the load balancing performed by
that LSR would be poor. Special attention should be paid when a
forwarding adjacency LSP (FA-LSP) [RFC4206] is used as a link along
the path of a source stacked LSP, since the labels of the FA-LSP
would additionally count towards the depth of the label stack when
calculating the appropriate positions to insert the ELs. The
recommendations for inserting <ELI, EL> pairs are:
o An LSR that is limited in the number of <ELI, EL> pairs that it o An LSR that is limited in the number of <ELI, EL> pairs that it
can insert SHOULD prefer to insert such pairs deeper in the stack. can insert SHOULD insert such pairs deeper in the stack.
o An LSR SHOULD try to insert an <ELI, EL> pair within the RLD of o An LSR SHOULD try to insert an <ELI, EL> pair within the RLD of
the maximum number of LSRs along the path as it can. the maximum number of LSRs along the path as it can.
o An LSR SHOULD try to insert the minimum number of such pairs while o An LSR SHOULD try to insert the minimum number of such pairs while
trying to satisfy the above criteria. trying to satisfy the above criteria.
A sample algorithm to insert ELs is shown below. Implementations can A sample algorithm to insert ELs is shown below. Implementations can
choose any algorithm as long as it follows the above recommendations. choose any algorithm as long as it follows the above recommendations.
set current EL insertion point to the bottommost EL-capable location Initialize the current EL insertion point to the
while local-node can push more labels or top of stack has been reached { bottommost label in the stack that is EL-capable
insert an ELI+EL at current insertion point while local-node can push more labels OR
move insertion point up until current EL is out of RLD top of stack has been reached {
AND insert an ELI+EL at current insertion point
insertion point is EL-capable move insertion point up until current EL is out of RLD
set current insertion point to new insertion point AND
} insertion point is EL-capable
set current insertion point to new insertion point
}
Figure 2: Algorithm to insert <ELI, EL> pairs in a label stack Figure 2: Algorithm to insert <ELI, EL> pairs in a label stack
The RLD can be advertised via protocols and those extensions would be The RLD can be advertised via protocols and those extensions would be
described in a separate document. described in a separate document.
The recommendations above are not expected to bring any additional
OAM considerations beyond those described in section 6 of [RFC6790].
However, the OAM requirements and solutions for source stacked
tunnels are still under discussion and future revisions of this
document will address those if needed.
5. Options considered 5. Options considered
5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels 5.1. Single EL at the bottom of the stack of tunnels
In this option a single EL is used for the entire label stack. The In this option a single EL is used for the entire label stack. The
source LSR S encodes the entropy label (EL) below the labels of all source LSR S encodes the entropy label (EL) below the labels of all
the stacked tunnels. In Figure 1 label stack at LSR S would look the stacked tunnels. In Figure 1 label stack at LSR S would look
like <SP1, SS1, S-SvcS1, SS2, S-SvcS2, SD, ELI, EL> <remaining packet like <SP1, SS1, S-SvcS1, SS2, S-SvcS2, SD, ELI, EL> <remaining packet
header>. Note that the notation in [RFC6790] is used to describe the header>. Note that the notation in [RFC6790] is used to describe the
label stack. An issue with this approach is that as the label stack label stack. An issue with this approach is that as the label stack
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 32
Choosing this option can lead to a loss of load-balancing using EL in Choosing this option can lead to a loss of load-balancing using EL in
a significant part of the network but that is a critical requirement a significant part of the network but that is a critical requirement
in a service provider network. in a service provider network.
5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack 5.2. An EL per tunnel in the stack
In this option each tunnel in the stack can be given its own EL. The In this option each tunnel in the stack can be given its own EL. The
source LSR pushes an <ELI, EL> before pushing a tunnel label when source LSR pushes an <ELI, EL> before pushing a tunnel label when
load balancing is required to direct traffic on that tunnel. For the load balancing is required to direct traffic on that tunnel. For the
same Figure 1 above, the source LSR S encoded label stack would be same Figure 1 above, the source LSR S encoded label stack would be
<SS1, ELI, EL1, S-SvcS1, SS2, ELI, EL2, SD> where all the ELs can <SS1, ELI, EL1, S-SvcS1, SS2, ELI, EL2, S-SvcS2, SD> where all the
have the same value. Accessing the EL at an intermediate LSR is ELs can have the same value. Accessing the EL at an intermediate LSR
independent of the depth of the label stack and hence independent of is independent of the depth of the label stack and hence independent
the specific use-case to which the stacked tunnels are applied. A of the specific use-case to which the stacked tunnels are applied. A
drawback is that the depth of the label stack grows significantly, drawback is that the depth of the label stack grows significantly,
almost 3 times as the number of labels in the label stack. The almost 3 times as the number of labels in the label stack. The
network design should ensure that source LSRs should have the network design should ensure that source LSRs should have the
capability to push such a deep label stack. Also, the bandwidth capability to push such a deep label stack. Also, the bandwidth
overhead and potential MTU issues of deep label stacks should be overhead and potential MTU issues of deep label stacks should be
accounted for in the network design. accounted for in the network design.
In the case where the RLD is the minimum value (3) for all LSRs, all In the case where the RLD is the minimum value (3) for all LSRs, all
LSRs are EL capable and the LSR that is inserting <ELI, EL> pairs has LSRs are EL capable and the LSR that is inserting <ELI, EL> pairs has
no limit on how many it can insert then this option is the same as no limit on how many it can insert then this option is the same as
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 skipping to change at page 8, line 21
the EL from the outer tunnel when that tunnel is terminated and re- the EL from the outer tunnel when that tunnel is terminated and re-
inserting it below the next inner tunnel label during the label swap inserting it below the next inner tunnel label during the label swap
operation. The LSR that stacks tunnels SHOULD insert an EL below the operation. The LSR that stacks tunnels SHOULD insert an EL below the
outermost tunnel. It SHOULD NOT insert ELs for any inner tunnels. outermost tunnel. It SHOULD NOT insert ELs for any inner tunnels.
Also, the penultimate hop LSR of a segment MUST NOT pop the ELI and Also, the penultimate hop LSR of a segment MUST NOT pop the ELI and
EL even though they are exposed as the top labels since the EL even though they are exposed as the top labels since the
terminating LSR of that segment would re-use the EL for the next terminating LSR of that segment would re-use the EL for the next
segment. segment.
For the same Figure 1 above, the source LSR S encoded label stack For the same Figure 1 above, the source LSR S encoded label stack
would be <SS11, ELI, EL, S-SvcS1, SS2, SD>. At P1 the outgoing label would be <SS11, ELI, EL, S-SvcS1, SS2, S-SvcS2, SD>. At P1 the
stack would be <SS1, ELI, EL, S-SvcS1, SS2, SD> after it has load outgoing label stack would be <SS1, ELI, EL, S-SvcS1, SS2, S-SvcS2,
balanced to one of the links L1 or L2. At S1 the outgoing label SD> after it has load balanced to one of the links L1 or L2. At S1
stack would be <SS2, ELI, EL, SD>. At P2 the outgoing label stack the outgoing label stack would be <SS2, S-SvS2, ELI, EL, SD>. At P2
would be <SS2, ELI, EL, SD> and it would load balance to one of the the outgoing label stack would be <SS2, ELI, EL, S-SvcS2, SD> and it
nexthop LSRs P3 or P4. Accessing the EL at an intermediate LSR (e.g. would load balance to one of the nexthop LSRs P3 or P4. Accessing
P3) is independent of the depth of the label stack and hence the EL at an intermediate LSR (e.g. P3) is independent of the depth
independent of the specific use-case to which the stacked tunnels are of the label stack and hence independent of the specific use-case to
applied. which the stacked tunnels are applied.
This option was discounted due to the significant change in label This option was discounted due to the significant change in label
swap operations that would be required for existing hardware. swap operations that would be required for existing hardware.
5.3.1. EL at top of stack 5.3.1. EL at top of stack
A slight variant of the re-usable EL option is to keep the EL at the A slight variant of the re-usable EL option is to keep the EL at the
top of the stack rather than below the tunnel label. In this case top of the stack rather than below the tunnel label. In this case
each LSR that is not terminating a segment should continue to keep each LSR that is not terminating a segment should continue to keep
the received EL at the top of the stack when forwarding the packet the received EL at the top of the stack when forwarding the packet
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 35
The authors would like to thank John Drake and Loa Andersson for The authors would like to thank John Drake and Loa Andersson for
their comments. their comments.
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations
beyond those already listed in [RFC6790].
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe, Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., and E. Crabbe,
"Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring- "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-filsfils-spring-
segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014. segment-routing-04 (work in progress), July 2014.
[I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases] [I-D.filsfils-spring-segment-routing-use-cases]
Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Francois, P., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E. Ytti, S., Henderickx, W., Tantsura, J., Kini, S., and E.
Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils- Crabbe, "Segment Routing Use Cases", draft-filsfils-
spring-segment-routing-use-cases-00 (work in progress), spring-segment-routing-use-cases-01 (work in progress),
March 2014. October 2014.
[I-D.gredler-spring-mpls] [I-D.gredler-spring-mpls]
Gredler, H., Rekhter, Y., Jalil, L., Kini, S., and X. Xu, Gredler, H., Rekhter, Y., Jalil, L., Kini, S., and X. Xu,
"Supporting Source/Explicitly Routed Tunnels via Stacked "Supporting Source/Explicitly Routed Tunnels via Stacked
LSPs", draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 (work in progress), LSPs", draft-gredler-spring-mpls-06 (work in progress),
May 2014. May 2014.
[I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls] [I-D.ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-mpls]
Singh, R., Shen, Y., and J. Drake, "Entropy label for Singh, R., Shen, Y., and J. Drake, "Entropy label for
seamless MPLS", draft-ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless- seamless MPLS", draft-ravisingh-mpls-el-for-seamless-
mpls-02 (work in progress), July 2014. mpls-02 (work in progress), July 2014.
[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.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[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, November 2012. RFC 6790, November 2012.
[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., and [RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., and
C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance
Requirements", RFC 7325, August 2014. Requirements", RFC 7325, August 2014.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
53 lines changed or deleted 92 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/