draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-02.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03.txt 
OSPF Working Group X. Xu, Ed. OSPF Working Group X. Xu, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track B. Decraene, Ed.
Expires: October 23, 2017 Orange Expires: November 20, 2017 Orange
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
U. Chunduri
Huawei
L. Contreras L. Contreras
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
April 21, 2017 May 19, 2017
Advertising Tunnelling Capability in OSPF Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-02 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03
Abstract Abstract
Some networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of
of tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of tunnel types are defined and the ingress needs to select a type of
tunnel which is supported by the egress. This document defines how tunnel which is supported by the egress and itself. This document
to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router Information. defines how to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router
Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs).
Requirements Language 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].
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
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 October 23, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 27
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Tunnel Parameters sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Encapsulated Protocol sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. End Point sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.4. Color sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry . . . . 7 6.3. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Some networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as: Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons, such as:
o Partial deployment of MPLS-SPRING as described in o Partial deployment of MPLS-SPRING as described in
[I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction], where IP tunnels [I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction], where IP tunnels
are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers so as to traverse are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to traverse non-MPLS
non- MPLS routers. routers.
o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in Section 6.9 of o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture], where IP tunnels are used between [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture], where IP tunnels are used between
MPLS-BIER-capable routers so as to traverse non MPLS-BIER MPLS-BIER-capable routers to traverse non MPLS-BIER
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] routers. [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] routers.
o Partial deployment of IPv6 (resp. IPv4) in IPv4 (resp. IPv6) o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv6 in IPv4
networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used networks as described in [RFC5565], where IPvx tunnels are used
between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers. between IPvx-enabled routers so as to traverse non-IPvx routers.
o Remote Loop Free Alternate repair tunnels as described in o Remote Loop-Free Alternate (RLFA) repair tunnels as described in
[RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local [RFC7490], where tunnels are used between the Point of Local
Repair and the selected PQ node. Repair and the selected PQ node.
The ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by The ingress needs to select a type of tunnel which is supported by
the egress. This document describes how to use OSPF Router the egress and itself. This document describes how to use OSPF
Information to advertise the egress tunnelling capabilities of nodes. Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the
In this document, OSPF means both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. egress tunneling capabilities of OSPF routers. In this document,
OSPF refers to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770]. This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC7770].
3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability
Routers advertises their supported encapsulation type(s) by Routers advertise their supported encapsulation type(s) by
advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA advertising a new TLV of the OSPF Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA
[RFC7770], referred to as Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV is [RFC7770], referred to as the Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV
applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation Capability is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation
TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF Router Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF
Information (RI) Opaque LSA. The scope of the advertisement depends Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Encapsulation Capability
on the application but it is recommended that it SHOULD be domain- TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only
wide. The Type code of the Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored.
Length value is variable, and the Value field contains one or more The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is
Tunnel Encapsulation Type sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type sub-TLVs recommended that it SHOULD be domain- wide. The Type code of the
indicates a particular encapsulation format that the advertising Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable,
router supports. and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type
Sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular
encapsulation format that the advertising router supports.
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type
The Tunnel Encapsulation Type sub-TLV is structured as follows: The Tunnel Encapsulation Type Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) | | Tunnel Type (2 Octets) | Length (2 Octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Value | | Sub-TLVs |
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Tunnel Type (2 octets): identifies the type of tunneling Tunnel Type (2 octets): Identifies the type of tunneling
technology being signaled. This document defines the following technology being signaled. This document defines the following
types: types:
1. L2TPv3 over IP [RFC3931] : Type code=1; 1. L2TPv3 over IP [RFC3931] : Type code=1;
2. GRE [RFC2784] : Type code=2; 2. GRE [RFC2784] : Type code=2;
3. Transmit tunnel endpoint [RFC5566] : Type code=3; 3. Transmit tunnel endpoint [RFC5566] : Type code=3;
4. IPsec in Tunnel-mode [RFC5566] : Type code=4; 4. IPsec in Tunnel-mode [RFC5566] : Type code=4;
5. IP in IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type 5. IP-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type
code=5; code=5;
6. MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type 6. MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type
code=6; code=6;
7. IP in IP [RFC2003] [RFC4213]: Type code=7; 7. IP-in-IP [RFC2003] [RFC4213]: Type code=7;
8. VXLAN [RFC7348] : Type code=8; 8. VXLAN [RFC7348] : Type code=8;
9. NVGRE [RFC7637] : Type code=9; 9. NVGRE [RFC7637] : Type code=9;
10. MPLS [RFC3032] : Type code=10; 10. MPLS [RFC3032] : Type code=10;
11. MPLS-in-GRE [RFC4023] : Type code=11; 11. MPLS-in-GRE [RFC4023] : Type code=11;
12. VXLAN GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] : Type code=12; 12. VXLAN GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] : Type code=12;
skipping to change at page 4, line 42 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
12. VXLAN GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] : Type code=12; 12. VXLAN GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] : Type code=12;
13. MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510] : Type code=13; 13. MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510] : Type code=13;
14. MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS [RFC7510] : Type code=14; 14. MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS [RFC7510] : Type code=14;
15. MPLS-in-L2TPv3 [RFC4817] : Type code=15; 15. MPLS-in-L2TPv3 [RFC4817] : Type code=15;
16. GTP: Type code=16; 16. GTP: Type code=16;
Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
Length (2 octets): unsigned integer indicating the total number of Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total
octets of the value field. number of octets of the value field.
Value (variable): zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub- Value (variable): Zero or more Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-
TLVs as defined in Section 5. TLVs as defined in Section 5.
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute
The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute sub-TLV is structured as as The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
follows:
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet) | | Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet) |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Length (1 Octet) | | Sub-TLV Length (1 Octet) |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Value (Variable) | | Sub-TLV Value (Variable) |
| | | |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): each sub-TLV type defines a certain Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain
property about the tunnel TLV that contains this sub-TLV. The property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. The
following are the types defined in this document: following are the types defined in this document:
1. Encapsulation Parameters: sub-TLV type = 1; (See Section 5.1) 1. Encapsulation: Sub-TLV type = 1; (See Section 5.1)
2. Encapsulated Protocol: sub-TLV type = 2; (See Section 5.2) 2. Protocol Type: Sub-TLV type = 2; (See Section 5.2)
3. End Point: sub-TLV type = 3; (See Section 5.3) 3. Endpoint: Sub-TLV type = 3; (See Section 5.3)
4. Color: sub-TLV type = 4; (See Section 5.4) 4. Color: Sub-TLV type = 4; (See Section 5.4)
Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): unsigned integer indicating the total Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): Unsigned 8-bit integer indicating the
number of octets of the sub-TLV value field. total number of octets of the Sub-TLV value field.
Sub-TLV Value (variable): encodings of the value field depend on Sub-TLV Value (variable): Encodings of the value field depend on
the sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections the Sub-TLV type as enumerated above. The following sub-sections
define the encoding in detail. define the encoding in detail.
Any unknown sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped. However, if the Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be ignored just because it However, if the TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be ignored
contains an unknown sub-TLV. just because it contains an unknown Sub-TLV.
If a sub-TLV is erroneous, this specific Tunnel Encapsulation MUST be If a Sub-TLV is invalid, this specific Tunnel Encapsulation MUST be
ignored and skipped. However, others Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be
considered. considered.
5.1. Tunnel Parameters sub-TLV 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] under the name This Sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] and
Encapsulation sub-TLV. [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] under the name Encapsulation Sub-TLV.
5.2. Encapsulated Protocol sub-TLV 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV
This sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] under the name This Sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] and
Protocol Type. [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] under the name Protocol Type.
5.3. End Point sub-TLV 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV
The value field carries the Network Address to be used as tunnel The value field carries the Network Address to be used as tunnel
destination address. destination address.
If length is 4, the Address Family (AFI) is IPv4. If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address.
If length is 16, the Address Family (AFI) is IPv6. If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address.
5.4. Color sub-TLV 5.4. Color Sub-TLV
The valued field is a 4 octets opaque unsigned integer. The valued field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer.
The color value is user defined and configured locally on the The color value is user defined and configured locally on the
routers. It may be used by the service providers to define policies. advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define
policies.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. OSPF Router Information 6.1. OSPF Router Information
This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the
registry OSPF Router Information (RI). OSPF Router Information (RI) registry.
Value TLV Name Reference Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ------------- ----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document
6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry 6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry
This document requests IANA to create a new registry "IGP Tunnel This document requests IANA to create a new registry "IGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Types" with the following registration procedure: Encapsulation Types" with the following registration procedure:
Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type. Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- ------- ------------------------------------------ -------------
0 Reserved This document 0 Reserved This document
1 L2TPv3 over IP This document 1 L2TPv3 over IP This document
2 GRE This document 2 GRE This document
3 Transmit tunnel endpoint This document 3 Transmit tunnel endpoint This document
4 IPsec in Tunnel-mode This document 4 IPsec in Tunnel-mode This document
5 IP in IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document 5 IP-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document
6 MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document 6 MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode This document
7 IP in IP This document 7 IP-in-IP This document
8 VXLAN This document 8 VXLAN This document
9 NVGRE This document 9 NVGRE This document
10 MPLS This document 10 MPLS This document
11 MPLS-in-GRE This document 11 MPLS-in-GRE This document
12 VXLAN-GPE This document 12 VXLAN-GPE This document
13 MPLS-in-UDP This document 13 MPLS-in-UDP This document
14 MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS This document 14 MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS This document
15 MPLS-in-L2TPv3 This document 15 MPLS-in-L2TPv3 This document
16 GTP This document 16 GTP This document
17-250 Unassigned 17-250 Unassigned
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 7, line 39
Assignments of Encapsulation Types are via Standards Action Assignments of Encapsulation Types are via Standards Action
[RFC5226]. [RFC5226].
6.3. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry 6.3. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry
This document requests IANA to create a new registry "IGP Tunnel This document requests IANA to create a new registry "IGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Types" with the following registration Encapsulation Attribute Types" with the following registration
procedure: procedure:
Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types. Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types
Value Name Reference Value Name Reference
------- ------------------------------------ ------------- ------- ------------------------------------ -------------
0 Reserved This document 0 Reserved This document
1 Encapsulation parameters This document 1 Encapsulation This document
2 Protocol This document 2 Protocol Type This document
3 End Point This document 3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document 4 Color This document
5-250 Unassigned 5-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental This document 251-254 Experimental This document
255 Reserved This document 255 Reserved This document
Assignments of Encapsulation Attribute Types are via Standards Action Assignments of Encapsulation Attribute Types are via Standards Action
[RFC5226]. [RFC5226].
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the Security considerations applicable to softwires can be found in the
mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel mesh framework [RFC5565]. In general, security issues of the tunnel
protocols signaled through this IGP capability extension are protocols signaled through this OSPF capability extension are
inherited. inherited.
If a third party is able to modify any of the information that is If a third-party is able to modify any of the information that is
used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to used to form encapsulation headers, to choose a tunnel type, or to
choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data choose a particular tunnel for a particular payload type, user data
packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped. packets may end up getting misrouted, misdelivered, and/or dropped.
Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in Security considerations for the base OSPF protocol are covered in
[RFC2328] and [RFC5340]. [RFC2328] and [RFC5340].
8. Acknowledgements 8. Contributors
This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512]. Uma Chunduri
Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
The authors would like to thank Carlos Pignataro and Karsten Thomann 9. Acknowledgements
for their valuable comments on this draft.
9. References This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512].
9.1. Normative References The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos
Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this
document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his
detailed review of this document.
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, 10. References
DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1700>. 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003, [RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996, DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
skipping to change at page 9, line 25 skipping to change at page 9, line 30
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and [RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770, Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>. February 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
9.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-bier-architecture] [I-D.ietf-bier-architecture]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Przygienda, T., and
S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit S. Aldrin, "Multicast using Bit Index Explicit
Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-05 (work in Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-06 (work in
progress), October 2016. progress), April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation] [I-D.ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J., Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., Dolganow, A., Tantsura, J.,
Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation for Bit Index
Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks", Explicit Replication in MPLS and non-MPLS Networks",
draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-bier-mpls-encapsulation-06 (work in progress),
December 2016. December 2016.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-04
(work in progress), April 2017.
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-03 (work Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-04 (work
in progress), October 2016. in progress), April 2017.
[I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction] [I-D.xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-instruction]
Xu, X., Bryant, S., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras, Xu, X., Bryant, S., Raszuk, R., Chunduri, U., Contreras,
L., Jalil, L., and H. Assarpour, "Unified Source Routing L., Jalil, L., and H. Assarpour, "Unified Source Routing
Instruction using MPLS Label Stack", draft-xu-mpls- Instruction using MPLS Label Stack", draft-xu-mpls-
unified-source-routing-instruction-00 (work in progress), unified-source-routing-instruction-00 (work in progress),
March 2017. March 2017.
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998,
skipping to change at page 11, line 32 skipping to change at page 11, line 44
Bruno Decraene (editor) Bruno Decraene (editor)
Orange Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Robert Raszuk Robert Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
Email: robert@raszuk.net Email: robert@raszuk.net
Uma Chunduri
Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
Luis M. Contreras Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Luay Jalil Luay Jalil
Verizon Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
 End of changes. 66 change blocks. 
125 lines changed or deleted 130 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/