draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-04.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: November 20, 2017 Orange Expires: December 25, 2017 Orange
R. Raszuk R. Raszuk
Bloomberg LP Bloomberg LP
L. Contreras L. Contreras
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
L. Jalil L. Jalil
Verizon Verizon
May 19, 2017 June 23, 2017
Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-03 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-04
Abstract Abstract
Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety of Networks use tunnels for a variety of reasons. A large variety 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 and itself. This document tunnel which is supported by the egress and itself. This document
defines how to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router defines how to advertise egress tunnel capabilities in OSPF Router
Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs). Information Link State Advertisement (LSAs).
Requirements Language Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 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 November 20, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 25, 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 25 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.5. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry . . . . . . . . . 6 6.6. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry . . . . 7 7. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry . . . . 6
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
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 to traverse non-MPLS are used between MPLS-SPRING-enabled routers to traverse non-MPLS
routers. routers.
o Partial deployment of MPLS-BIER as described in 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 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 in IPv4 networks or IPv6 in IPv4 o Partial deployment of IPv6 in IPv4 networks or IPv4 in IPv6
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 (RLFA) 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 and itself. This document describes how to use OSPF the egress and itself. This document describes how to use OSPF
Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the Router Information Link State Advertisements (LSAs) to advertise the
egress tunneling capabilities of OSPF routers. In this document, egress tunneling capabilities of OSPF routers. In this document,
OSPF refers to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPF refers to both OSPFv2 [RFC2328] and OSPFv3 [RFC5340].
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 advertise 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 the Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV [RFC7770], referred to as the Encapsulation Capability TLV. This TLV
is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The Encapsulation
Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF Capability TLV SHOULD NOT appear more than once within a given OSPF
Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Encapsulation Capability Router Information (RI) Opaque LSA. If the Encapsulation Capability
TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only TLV appears more than once in an OSPF Router Information LSA, only
the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored. the first occurrence MUST be processed and others MUST be ignored.
The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is The scope of the advertisement depends on the application but it is
recommended that it SHOULD be domain- wide. The Type code of the recommended that it SHOULD be domain- wide. The Type code of the
Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable, Encapsulation Capability TLV is TBD1, the Length value is variable,
and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type and the Value field contains one or more Tunnel Encapsulation Type
Sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular Sub-TLVs. Each Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates a particular
encapsulation format that the advertising router supports. encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with
the parameters to be used for the tunnel.
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) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| Sub-TLVs | | 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. Tunnel types are shared with the BGP
types: extension [RFC5512] and hence are defined in the IANA registry
"BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types". Unknown types
1. L2TPv3 over IP [RFC3931] : Type code=1; are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
2. GRE [RFC2784] : Type code=2;
3. Transmit tunnel endpoint [RFC5566] : Type code=3;
4. IPsec in Tunnel-mode [RFC5566] : Type code=4;
5. IP-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type
code=5;
6. MPLS-in-IP tunnel with IPsec Transport Mode [RFC5566] : Type
code=6;
7. IP-in-IP [RFC2003] [RFC4213]: Type code=7;
8. VXLAN [RFC7348] : Type code=8;
9. NVGRE [RFC7637] : Type code=9;
10. MPLS [RFC3032] : Type code=10;
11. MPLS-in-GRE [RFC4023] : Type code=11;
12. VXLAN GPE [I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe] : Type code=12;
13. MPLS-in-UDP [RFC7510] : Type code=13;
14. MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS [RFC7510] : Type code=14;
15. MPLS-in-L2TPv3 [RFC4817] : Type code=15;
16. GTP: Type code=16;
Unknown types are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-bit integer indicating the total
number of 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 follows: The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV is structured as follows:
skipping to change at page 5, line 26 skipping to change at page 4, line 45
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| 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 of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. The property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. This
following are the types defined in this document: document defines such types Section 6 )
1. Encapsulation: Sub-TLV type = 1; (See Section 5.1)
2. Protocol Type: Sub-TLV type = 2; (See Section 5.2)
3. Endpoint: Sub-TLV type = 3; (See Section 5.3)
4. Color: Sub-TLV type = 4; (See Section 5.4)
Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): Unsigned 8-bit integer indicating the Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): Unsigned 8-bit integer indicating the
total 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 upon receipt. Any unknown Sub-TLVs MUST be ignored and skipped upon receipt.
However, if the TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be ignored However, if the TLV is understood, the entire TLV MUST NOT be ignored
just because it contains an unknown Sub-TLV. just because it contains an unknown Sub-TLV.
If a Sub-TLV is invalid, this specific Tunnel Encapsulation MUST be If a Sub-TLV is invalid, this specific Tunnel Encapsulation MUST be
ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be
considered. considered.
5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV 6. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
This Sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] and 6.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] under the name Encapsulation Sub-TLV.
5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub-TLVs for
Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from both a
syntax and semantic standpoint. Usage is defined in Section 7.
This Sub-TLV has its format defined in [RFC5512] and 6.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] under the name Protocol Type.
5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type sub-TLV" of
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntax, semantic and usage
standpoint.
6.3. 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 tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address. If length is 4, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv4 address.
If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address. If length is 16, the tunnel endpoint is an IPv6 address.
5.4. Color Sub-TLV 6.4. Color Sub-TLV
The valued field is a 4-octet 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
advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define advertising routers. It may be used by service providers to define
policies. policies on the ingress routers, for example to control the selection
of the tunnel to use.
6. IANA Considerations This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color
Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is
used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color
Extended Community attached to those routes, express the willing of
the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color.
6.1. OSPF Router Information 6.5. IP QoS Field
This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of
OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntax, semantic and usage
standpoint.
Value TLV Name Reference 6.6. UDP Destination Port
----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document
6.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Types Registry This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.3.2 "IPv4 DS Field" of
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntax, semantic and usage
standpoint.
This document requests IANA to create a new registry "IGP Tunnel 7. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute
Encapsulation Types" with the following registration procedure:
Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Type The advertisement of a Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates that the
advertising router support a particular tunnel encapsulation along
with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to use
that tunnel, is driven by policy on the ingress router. The color
sub-TLV may be used as an input to this policy. Note that some
tunnel types may require the execution of an explicit tunnel setup
protocol before they can be used to carry data.
Value Name Reference A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route toward the IP address
------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV or if the route is not advertised
0 Reserved This document by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute
1 L2TPv3 over IP This document advertising this tunnel.
2 GRE This document
3 Transmit tunnel endpoint This document
4 IPsec in Tunnel-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
7 IP-in-IP This document
8 VXLAN This document
9 NVGRE This document
10 MPLS This document
11 MPLS-in-GRE This document
12 VXLAN-GPE This document
13 MPLS-in-UDP This document
14 MPLS-in-UDP-with-DTLS This document
15 MPLS-in-L2TPv3 This document
16 GTP This document
17-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental This document
255 Reserved This document
Assignments of Encapsulation Types are via Standards Action 8. IANA Considerations
[RFC5226].
6.3. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Types Registry 8.1. OSPF Router Information
This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the
OSPF Router Information (RI) registry.
Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document
8.2. 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 This document 1 Encapsulation This document
2 Protocol Type This document 2 Protocol Type This document
3 Endpoint This document 3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document 4 Color This document
5-250 Unassigned 5 Unassigned
6 IP QoS This document
7 UDP Destination Port This document
8-250 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 9. 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 OSPF 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. Contributors 10. Contributors
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
9. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512]. This document is partially inspired by [RFC5512].
The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos The authors would like to thank Greg Mirsky, John E Drake, Carlos
Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this Pignataro and Karsten Thomann for their valuable comments on this
document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his document. Special thanks should be given to Acee Lindem for his
detailed review of this document. detailed review of this document.
10. References 12. References
10.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003, [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996, Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>. Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06
(work in progress), June 2017.
[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>.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., Townsley, M., Ed., and I. Goyret, Ed.,
"Layer Two Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)",
RFC 3931, DOI 10.17487/RFC3931, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3931>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[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", 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>.
10.2. Informative References 12.2. 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-06 (work in Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in
progress), April 2017. progress), June 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-07 (work in progress),
December 2016. June 2017.
[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]
Maino, F., Kreeger, L., and U. Elzur, "Generic Protocol
Extension for VXLAN", draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-04 (work
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., Assarpour, H., Velde, G., Tantsura, J., and
Instruction using MPLS Label Stack", draft-xu-mpls- S. Ma, "Unified Source Routing Instruction using MPLS
unified-source-routing-instruction-00 (work in progress), Label Stack", draft-xu-mpls-unified-source-routing-
March 2017. instruction-01 (work in progress), June 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2328>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, Ed.,
"Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.
[RFC4817] Townsley, M., Pignataro, C., Wainner, S., Seely, T., and
J. Young, "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling
Protocol Version 3", RFC 4817, DOI 10.17487/RFC4817, March
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4817>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation [RFC5512] Mohapatra, P. and E. Rosen, "The BGP Encapsulation
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) and the BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512, Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5512,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5512, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5512>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5512>.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh [RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009, Framework", RFC 5565, DOI 10.17487/RFC5565, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5565>.
[RFC5566] Berger, L., White, R., and E. Rosen, "BGP IPsec Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", RFC 5566, DOI 10.17487/RFC5566,
June 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5566>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N. [RFC7490] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Shand, M., and N.
So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)", So, "Remote Loop-Free Alternate (LFA) Fast Reroute (FRR)",
RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015, RFC 7490, DOI 10.17487/RFC7490, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7490>.
[RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black,
"Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7510>.
[RFC7637] Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Xiaohu Xu (editor) Xiaohu Xu (editor)
Huawei Huawei
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Bruno Decraene (editor) Bruno Decraene (editor)
Orange Orange
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
196 lines changed or deleted 107 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/