draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06.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: January 4, 2018 Orange Expires: January 17, 2018 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
July 3, 2017 July 16, 2017
Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF Advertising Tunneling Capability in OSPF
draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-05 draft-ietf-ospf-encapsulation-cap-06
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 January 4, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2018.
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 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Advertising Encapsulation Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Tunnel Encapsulation Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.4. Color Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.5. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.6. IP QoS Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.6. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.7. UDP Destination Port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.7. future sub-TLV allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute . . . . . . . . . 6 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. OSPF Router Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . 7
8.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry . . 7 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 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.
skipping to change at page 3, line 41 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
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 along with encapsulation format that the advertising router supports along with
the parameters to be used for the tunnel. 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:
skipping to change at page 4, line 31 skipping to change at page 4, line 31
extension [RFC5512] and hence are defined in the IANA registry extension [RFC5512] and hence are defined in the IANA registry
"BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types". Unknown types "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Tunnel Types". Unknown types
are to be ignored and skipped upon receipt. 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 Sub-TLVs
The Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV is structured as follows: Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLV are structured as follows:
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Type (1 Octet) | | Sub-TLV Type (2 Octets) |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Length (1 Octet) | | Sub-TLV Length (2 Octets) |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
| Sub-TLV Value (Variable) | | Sub-TLV Value (Variable) |
| | | |
+-----------------------------------+ +-----------------------------------+
Sub-TLV Type (1 octet): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain Sub-TLV Type (2 octets): Each Sub-TLV type defines a certain
property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. This property of the tunnel TLV that contains this Sub-TLV. Types are
document defines such types Section 6 ) registered in the IANA registry "OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Sub-TLVs" Section 7.2.
Sub-TLV Length (1 octet): Unsigned 8-bit integer indicating the Sub-TLV Length (2 octets): Unsigned 16-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
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, its Tunnel Encapsulation TLV MUST be ignored
ignored and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulations MUST be and skipped. However, other Tunnel Encapsulation TLVs MUST be
considered. considered.
6. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs 5.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
6.1. Encapsulation Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub-TLVs for This Sub-TLV of type 1 is defined in section 3.2 "Encapsulation Sub-
Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from both a TLVs for Particular Tunnel Types" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
syntax and semantic standpoint. Usage is defined in Section 7. from both a syntax and semantic standpoint. Usage is defined in
Section 6.
6.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV 5.2. Protocol Type Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type sub-TLV" of This Sub-TLV of type 2 is defined in section 3.4.1 "Protocol Type
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic, and usage sub-TLV" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic,
standpoint. and usage standpoint.
6.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV 5.3. Endpoint Sub-TLV
The value field carries the Network Address to be used as tunnel Type is 3. The value field carries the Network Address to be used as
destination address. tunnel 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.
6.4. Color Sub-TLV 5.4. Color Sub-TLV
The valued field is a 4-octet opaque unsigned integer. Type is 4. The value 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 on the ingress routers, for example, to control the policies on the ingress routers, for example, to control the
selection of the tunnel to use. selection of the tunnel to use.
This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color This color value can be referenced by BGP routes carrying Color
Extended Community [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]. If the tunnel is 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 used to reach the BGP Next-Hop of BGP routes, then attaching a Color
Extended Community attached to those routes express the willingness Extended Community attached to those routes express the willingness
of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color. of the BGP speaker to use a tunnel of the same color.
6.5. IP QoS Field 5.5. Load-Balancing Block Sub-TLV
This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of This Sub-TLV of type 5 is defined in [RFC5640] from a syntactic,
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage semantic and usage standpoint.
standpoint.
6.6. UDP Destination Port 5.6. IP QoS Field
This Sub-TLV is defined in section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination Port" of This Sub-TLV of type 6 is defined in section 3.3.1 "IPv4 DS Field" of
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and usage
standpoint. standpoint.
6.7. future sub-TLV allocations 5.7. UDP Destination Port
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] similarly defines Tunnel Encapsulation This Sub-TLV of type 7 is defined in section 3.3.2 "UDP Destination
Attribute Sub-TLVs. IGP and BGP have separate IANA registries Port" of [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] from a syntactic, semantic and
allowing for separate sub-TLV definitions. If the same information usage standpoint.
is to be advertised for both IGP and BGP tunnel encapsulation, it is
RECOMMENDED to use the same code point, semantic and syntax.
However, it is to be noted that the "BGP Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute Sub-TLVs" registry, allows for sub-TLV with two octets of
length, while the "IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs"
registry only allows for one octet of length. Hence two-octets BGP
Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs won't be able to be defined
for IGP Tunnels. Eventually, their information may be split over
multiple sub-TLVs.
7. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute 6. Usage of the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute
The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates that The advertisement of an Encapsulation Type Sub-TLVs indicates that
the advertising router support a particular tunnel encapsulation the advertising router support a particular tunnel encapsulation
along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to along with the parameters to be used for the tunnel. The decision to
use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the ingress router to use that tunnel is driven by the capability of the ingress router to
support the encapsulation type and the policy on the ingress router. support the encapsulation type and the policy on the ingress router.
The color sub-TLV may be used as an input to this policy. Note that 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 some tunnel types may require the execution of an explicit tunnel
setup protocol before they can be used to carry data. setup protocol before they can be used to carry data.
A tunnel MUST NOT be used if there is no route toward the IP address 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 specified in the Endpoint Sub-TLV or if the route is not advertised
by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute for the by the router advertising the Tunnel Encapsulation attribute for the
tunnel. tunnel.
8. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
8.1. OSPF Router Information 7.1. OSPF Router Information
This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the This document requests IANA to allocate a new code point from the
OSPF Router Information (RI) registry. OSPF Router Information (RI) registry.
Value TLV Name Reference Value TLV Name Reference
----- ------------------------------------ ------------- ----- ------------------------------------ -------------
TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document TBD1 Tunnel Capabilities This document
8.2. IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry 7.2. OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs Registry
This document requests IANA to create a new registry "IGP Tunnel This document requests IANA to create a new registry "OSPF Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs" with the following registration
procedure: procedure:
Registry Name: IGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs The values in the range 1-255 are to be allocated using the
"Standards Action" registration procedure as defined in [RFC5226].
Value Name Reference The values in the range 256-65499 are to be allocated using the
------- ------------------------------------ ------------- "First Come, First Served" registration procedure.
0 Reserved This document
1 Encapsulation This document
2 Protocol Type This document
3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document
5 Unassigned
6 IP QoS This document
7 UDP Destination Port This document
8-250 Unassigned
251-254 Experimental This document
255 Reserved This document
Assignments of Encapsulation Attribute Types are via Standards Action Registry Name: OSPF Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute Sub-TLVs
[RFC5226].
9. Security Considerations Value Name Reference
----------- ------------------------------------ -------------
0 Reserved This document
1 Encapsulation This document
2 Protocol Type This document
3 Endpoint This document
4 Color This document
5 Load-Balancing Block This document
6 IP QoS This document
7 UDP Destination Port This document
8-65499 Unassigned
65500-65535 Experimental This document
65535 Reserved This document
8. 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].
10. Contributors 9. Contributors
Uma Chunduri Uma Chunduri
Huawei Huawei
Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com Email: uma.chunduri@gmail.com
11. Acknowledgements 10. 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 reviews of this document. multiple detailed reviews of this document and help.
12. References 11. References
12.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-06
(work in progress), June 2017. (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>.
[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", 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>.
[RFC5640] Filsfils, C., Mohapatra, P., and C. Pignataro, "Load-
Balancing for Mesh Softwires", RFC 5640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5640, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5640>.
[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>.
12.2. Informative References 11.2. 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-07 (work in Replication", draft-ietf-bier-architecture-07 (work in
progress), June 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
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
99 lines changed or deleted 94 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/