draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft G. Swallow Internet-Draft Big Switch Networks
Updates: 4379,6424,6790 (if approved) C. Pignataro Updates: 4379,6424,6790 (if approved) G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: June 12, 2015 A. Malis Expires: December 13, 2015 Cisco Systems
S. Aldrin A. Malis
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
December 9, 2014 S. Aldrin
Google
June 11, 2015
Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over Label Switched Path (LSP) and Pseudowire (PW) Ping/Trace over
MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL) MPLS Network using Entropy Labels (EL)
draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-00 draft-ietf-mpls-entropy-lsp-ping-01
Abstract Abstract
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping and Traceroute are used to exercise specific paths of Equal-Cost Ping and Traceroute are used to exercise specific paths of Equal-Cost
Multipath (ECMP). When LSP is signaled to use Entropy Label (EL) Multipath (ECMP). When LSP is signaled to use Entropy Label (EL)
described in RFC6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute described in RFC6790, the ability for LSP Ping and Traceroute
operation to discover and exercise ECMP paths has been lost in operation to discover and exercise ECMP paths has been lost in
scenarios which LSRs apply deviating load balance techniques. One scenarios which LSRs apply deviating load balance techniques. One
such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL based load balancing while such scenario is when some LSRs apply EL based load balancing while
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
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 June 12, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 13, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 38 skipping to change at page 2, line 40
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Prerequisite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Prerequisite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Multipath Type 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Multipath Type 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Pseudowire Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Pseudowire Tracing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Initiating LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Initiating LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Responder LSR Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. IP Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . . . 9 6.1. IP Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . . . 10
6.2. IP Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. IP Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. Label Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . 11 6.3. Label Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL . . . . . 12
6.4. Label Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. Label Based Load Balancer & Pushes ELI/EL . . . . . . . . 12
6.5. Flow Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.5. Flow Aware MS-PW Stitching LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. DS Flags: L and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. DS Flags: L and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. New Multipath Information Type: TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. New Multipath Information Type: TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Supported and Unsupported Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10. Supported and Unsupported Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.1. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.1. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.2. Multpath Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12.2. Multpath Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12.3. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12.3. Entropy Label FEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 14. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
The following acronyms/terminologies are used in this document: The following acronyms/terminologies are used in this document:
o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching. o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching.
o LSP - Label Switched Path. o LSP - Label Switched Path.
skipping to change at page 8, line 38 skipping to change at page 8, line 40
procedures. procedures.
o When the initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize EL_LSP=True. o When the initiating LSR pushes ELI/EL, initialize EL_LSP=True.
Else set EL_LSP=False. Else set EL_LSP=False.
o When the initiating LSR is transmitting non-zero multipath o When the initiating LSR is transmitting non-zero multipath
information type: information type:
* If (EL_LSP), the initiating LSR MUST use multipath information * If (EL_LSP), the initiating LSR MUST use multipath information
type {TBD4} unless same responder LSR cannot handle type type {TBD4} unless same responder LSR cannot handle type
{TBD4}. {TBD4}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting multipath
information type {TBD4} in this case, both "IP Multipath
Information" and "Label Multipath Information" MUST be
included, and "IP Associated Label Multipath Information" MUST
be omitted (NULL).
* Else the initiating LSR MAY use multipath information type {2, * Else the initiating LSR MAY use multipath information type {2,
4, 8, 9}. 4, 8, 9, TBD4}. When the initiating LSR is transmitting
multipath information type {TBD4} in this case, "IP Multipath
o When the initiating LSR is transmitting multipath information type Information" MUST be included, and "Label Multipath
{TBD4}, both "IP Multipath Information" and "Label Multipath Information" and "IP Associated Label Multipath Information"
Information" MUST be included, and "IP Associated Label Multipath MUST be omitted (NULL).
Information" MUST be omitted (NULL).
o When the initiating LSR receives echo reply with {L=0, E=1} in DS o When the initiating LSR receives echo reply with {L=0, E=1} in DS
flags with valid contents, set EL_LSP=True. flags with valid contents, set EL_LSP=True.
In following conditions, the initiating LSR may have lost the ability In following conditions, the initiating LSR may have lost the ability
to exercise specific ECMP paths. The initiating LSR MAY continue to exercise specific ECMP paths. The initiating LSR MAY continue
with "best effort". with "best effort".
o Received echo reply contains empty multipath information. o Received echo reply contains empty multipath information.
skipping to change at page 9, line 28 skipping to change at page 9, line 31
contain associated label multipath information. contain associated label multipath information.
o IP multipath information types {2, 4, 8} sent, and received echo o IP multipath information types {2, 4, 8} sent, and received echo
reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS flags. reply with {L=1, E=0} in DS flags.
o Multipath information type {TBD4} sent, and received echo reply o Multipath information type {TBD4} sent, and received echo reply
with multipath information type other than {TBD4}. with multipath information type other than {TBD4}.
6. Responder LSR Procedures 6. Responder LSR Procedures
Common Procedures: The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request Common Procedures:
packet with multipath information type {TBD4} MUST validate following
contents. Any deviation MUST result in the responder LSR to consider
the packet as malformed and return code 1 (Malformed echo request
received) in the MPLS echo reply packet.
o IP multipath information MUST be included. o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet MUST first
determine whether or not the initiating LSR supports this LSP Ping
and Traceroute extension for Entropy Labels. If either of the
following conditions are met, the responder LSR SHOULD determine
that the initiating LSR supports this LSP Ping and Traceroute
extension for Entropy Labels.
o Label multipath information MUST be included. 1. Received MPLS echo request contains the multipath information
type {TBD4}.
o IP associated label multipath information MUST be omitted (NULL). 2. Received MPLS echo request contains a Target FEC Stack TLV
that includes the Entropy Label FEC.
If the initiating LSR is determined to not support this LSP Ping
and Traceroute extension for Entropy Labels, then the responder
LSR MUST NOT follow further procedures described in this section.
Specifically, MPLS echo reply packets:
* MUST have following DS Flags cleared (i.e., not set): "ELI/EL
push indicator" and "Label based load balance indicator".
* MUST NOT use multipath information type {TBD4}.
o The responder LSR receiving an MPLS echo request packet with
multipath information type {TBD4} MUST validate following
contents. Any deviation MUST result in the responder LSR to
consider the packet as malformed and return code 1 (Malformed echo
request received) in the MPLS echo reply packet.
* IP multipath information MUST be included.
* Label multipath information MAY be included.
* IP associated label multipath information MUST be omitted
(NULL).
Following subsections describe expected responder LSR procedures when Following subsections describe expected responder LSR procedures when
echo reply is to include DSMAP/DDMAP TLVs, based on local load echo reply is to include DSMAP/DDMAP TLVs, based on local load
balance technique being employed. In case the responder LSR performs balance technique being employed. In case the responder LSR performs
deviating load balance techniques per downstream basis, appropriate deviating load balance techniques per downstream basis, appropriate
procedures matching to each downstream load balance technique MUST be procedures matching to each downstream load balance technique MUST be
operated. operated.
6.1. IP Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL 6.1. IP Based Load Balancer & Not Pushing ELI/EL
skipping to change at page 15, line 8 skipping to change at page 15, line 31
Multipath type TBD4 is comprised of three sections. One section to Multipath type TBD4 is comprised of three sections. One section to
describe IP address set. One section to describe label set. One describe IP address set. One section to describe label set. One
section to describe another label set which associates to either IP section to describe another label set which associates to either IP
address set or label set specified in the other section. address set or label set specified in the other section.
Multipath information type TBD4 has following format: Multipath information type TBD4 has following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IPMultipathType| Reserved(MBZ) | IP Multipath Length | |IPMultipathType| IP Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~ ~ ~
| (IP Multipath Information) | | (IP Multipath Information) |
~ ~ ~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|LbMultipathType| Reserved(MBZ) | Label Multipath Length | |LbMultipathType| Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~ ~ ~
| (Label Multipath Information) | | (Label Multipath Information) |
~ ~ ~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved(MBZ) | Assoc Label Multipath Length | | Assoc Label Multipath Length | Reserved(MBZ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~ ~ ~
| (Associated Label Multipath Information) | | (Associated Label Multipath Information) |
~ ~ ~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Multipath Information Type TBD4 Figure 2: Multipath Information Type TBD4
o IPMultipathType o IPMultipathType
* 0 when "IP Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise one of * 0 when "IP Multipath Information" is omitted. Otherwise one of
IP multipath information values: {2, 4, 8}. IP multipath information values: {2, 4, 8}.
o IP Multipath Information o IP Multipath Information
* This section is omitted when "IPMultipathType" is 0. Otherwise * This section is omitted when "IPMultipathType" is 0. Otherwise
this section reuses IP multipath information from [RFC4379]. this section reuses IP multipath information from [RFC4379].
Specifically, multipath information for values {2, 4, 8} can be Specifically, multipath information for values {2, 4, 8} can be
used. used.
skipping to change at page 17, line 42 skipping to change at page 18, line 15
complex procedures. Complexities in OAM tools will produce minimal complex procedures. Complexities in OAM tools will produce minimal
benefits if majority of implementations are expected to employ small benefits if majority of implementations are expected to employ small
subset of cases described above. subset of cases described above.
o Section 4.3 of [RFC6790] states that implementations, for load o Section 4.3 of [RFC6790] states that implementations, for load
balancing purpose, parsing beyond the label stack after finding balancing purpose, parsing beyond the label stack after finding
Entropy Label is "limited incremental value". Therefore, it is Entropy Label is "limited incremental value". Therefore, it is
expected that most implementations will be of types "IP Based Load expected that most implementations will be of types "IP Based Load
Balancer" or "Label Based Load Balancer". Balancer" or "Label Based Load Balancer".
o Section 2.4.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-forwarding] recommends that o Section 2.4.5.1 of [RFC7325] recommends that search for entropies
search for entropies from the label stack should terminate upon from the label stack should terminate upon finding the first
finding the first Entropy Label. Therefore, it is expected that Entropy Label. Therefore, it is expected that implementations
implementations will only include the first (top-most) Entropy will only include the first (top-most) Entropy Label when there
Label when there are multiple Entropy Labels in the label stack. are multiple Entropy Labels in the label stack.
o It is expected that, in most cases, number of labels in the label o It is expected that, in most cases, number of labels in the label
stack will not exceed number of labels (N) which implementations stack will not exceed number of labels (N) which implementations
can include for load balancing purpose. can include for load balancing purpose.
o It is expected that labels in the label stack, besides Flow Label o It is expected that labels in the label stack, besides Flow Label
and Entropy Label, are constant for the lifetime of a single LSP and Entropy Label, are constant for the lifetime of a single LSP
multipath traceroute operation. Therefore, deviating load multipath traceroute operation. Therefore, deviating load
balancing implementations with respect to reserved labels should balancing implementations with respect to reserved labels should
not affect this tool. not affect this tool.
skipping to change at page 18, line 37 skipping to change at page 19, line 14
12. IANA Considerations 12. IANA Considerations
12.1. DS Flags 12.1. DS Flags
The IANA is requested to assign new bit numbers from the "DS flags" The IANA is requested to assign new bit numbers from the "DS flags"
sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by [RFC7537].
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry].
Bit number Name Reference Bit number Name Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD2 E: ELI/EL push indicator this document TBD2 E: ELI/EL push indicator this document
TBD3 L: Label based load balance indicator this document TBD3 L: Label based load balance indicator this document
12.2. Multpath Type 12.2. Multpath Type
The IANA is requested to assign a new value from the "Multipath Type" The IANA is requested to assign a new value from the "Multipath Type"
sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Note: the "Multipath Type" sub-registry is created by Note: the "Multipath Type" sub-registry is created by [RFC7537].
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry].
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- ---------- ---------------------------------------- ---------
TBD4 IP and label set this document TBD4 IP and label set this document
12.3. Entropy Label FEC 12.3. Entropy Label FEC
The IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for The IANA is requested to assign a new sub-TLV from the "Sub-TLVs for
TLV Types 1 and 16" section from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching TLV Types 1 and 16" section from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry
([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]).
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
-------- ------------ --------- -------- ------------ ---------
TBD1 Entropy Label FEC this document TBD1 Entropy Label FEC this document
13. Acknowledgements 13. Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Curtis Villamizar, Daniel Authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Curtis Villamizar, Daniel
King and Sriganesh Kini for performing thorough review and providing King, Sriganesh Kini and Victor Ji for performing thorough review and
valuable comments. providing valuable comments.
14. Contributing Authors 14. Contributing Authors
Nagendra Kumar Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: naikumar@cisco.com Email: naikumar@cisco.com
15. References 15. References
15.1. Normative References 15.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry]
Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
S. Aldrin, "IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points",
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-00 (work in progress),
November 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.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006. February 2006.
[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.
15.2. Informative References [RFC7537] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and
S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points", RFC
7537, May 2015.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-forwarding] 15.2. Informative References
Villamizar, C., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., and
C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance
Requirements", draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding-09 (work in
progress), March 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-04 (work in progress), October 2014. mpls-04 (work in progress), October 2014.
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
skipping to change at page 20, line 37 skipping to change at page 21, line 5
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan, [RFC6391] Bryant, S., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V., Regan,
J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of Pseudowires
over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, November over an MPLS Packet Switched Network", RFC 6391, November
2011. 2011.
[RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for [RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011. Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011.
[RFC7325] Villamizar, C., Kompella, K., Amante, S., Malis, A., and
C. Pignataro, "MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance
Requirements", RFC 7325, August 2014.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Nobo Akiya Nobo Akiya
Cisco Systems Big Switch Networks
Email: nobo@cisco.com Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
George Swallow George Swallow
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: swallow@cisco.com Email: swallow@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
skipping to change at page 21, line 15 skipping to change at page 21, line 32
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
Email: cpignata@cisco.com Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Andrew G. Malis Andrew G. Malis
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Email: agmalis@gmail.com Email: agmalis@gmail.com
Sam Aldrin Sam Aldrin
Huawei Technologies Google
Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com Email: aldrin.ietf@gmail.com
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
68 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/