--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-00.txt 2013-02-15 09:07:20.931708581 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-01.txt 2013-02-15 09:07:20.951707508 +0100 @@ -1,38 +1,37 @@ MPLS Working Group Kamran Raza Internet Draft Sami Boutros Updates: 5036, 4447 (if approved) Luca Martini Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. -Expires: February 7, 2013 +Expires: August 14, 2013 Nicolai Leymann Deutsche Telekom - August 8, 2012 + February 15, 2013 Applicability of LDP Label Advertisement Mode - draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-00.txt + draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-applicability-label-adv-01.txt Abstract An LDP speaker negotiates the label advertisement mode with its LDP peer at the time of session establishment. Although different applications sharing the same LDP session may need different modes of label distribution and advertisement, there is only one type of label advertisement mode that is negotiated and used per LDP session. This document clarifies the use and the applicability of session's negotiated label advertisement mode, and categorizes LDP applications into two broad categories of negotiated mode-bound and - mode-independent applications. The document also suggests an update - to RFC 5036 and RFC 4447 to remove any ambiquity and conflict in the - area of using correct label advertisement mode for a given - application. + mode-independent applications. The document updates RFC5036 and + RFC4447 to remove any ambiguity and conflict in the area of using + correct label advertisement mode for a given application. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. @@ -40,25 +39,25 @@ Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html - This Internet-Draft will expire on February 7, 2013. + This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2013. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without @@ -188,21 +187,21 @@ advertisement mode usage point of view: 1. Session mode-bound Applications 2. Session mode-independent Applications 3.2.1. Session mode-bound Applications We define a "session mode-bound application" to be an application which uses the negotiated label advertisement mode. This means that - the FEC-label binding exchange for such an LDP applications MUST use + the FEC-label binding exchange for such an LDP application MUST use the label advertisement mode negotiated for the LDP session. The early LDP applications "Dynamic Label Switching for IP Prefixes" and "Label-controlled ATM/FR" are included into this category. 3.2.2. Session mode-independent Applications We define a "session mode-independent application" to be an application which does not care about the negotiated label advertisement mode. This means that the FEC-label binding, or any @@ -287,21 +286,21 @@ "LDP MUST exchange PW FEC label bindings in downstream unsolicited manner, independent of the negotiated label advertisement mode of the LDP session". 5. Security Considerations This document specification only clarifies the applicability of LDP session's label advertisement mode, and hence does not add any LDP security mechanics and considerations to those already defined in - LDP specification [RFC5036]. + the LDP specification [RFC5036]. 6. IANA Considerations None. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC5036] L. Andersson, I. Minei, and B. Thomas, "LDP @@ -322,22 +321,22 @@ [P2MP-PW] S. Boutros, L. Martini, S. Sivabalan, G. Del Vecchio, Kamite, L. Jin, "Signaling Root-Initiated P2MP PWs using LDP", draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04.txt, Work in Progress, March 2012. [RFC6388] I. Minei, I. Wijnand, K. Kompella, B., "LDP Extensions for P2MP and MP2MP LSPs", RFC 6388, November 2011. [ICCP] L. Martini, S. Salam, A. Sajassi, and S. Matsushima, "Inter-Chassis Communication Protocol for L2VPN PE - Redundancy", draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-08.txt, Work in - Progress, June 2012. + Redundancy", draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-09.txt, Work in + Progress, July 2012. [RFC6389] R. Aggarwal, and J.L. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011. 8. Acknowledgments We acknowledge the authors of [RFC5036] and [RFC4447] since some of the text in this document is borrowed from their specification. We also acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their review and input. @@ -357,14 +356,14 @@ San Jose, CA 95134, USA. E-mail: sboutros@cisco.com Luca Martini Cisco Systems, Inc. 9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400, Englewood, CO 80112, USA. E-mail: lmartini@cisco.com Nicolai Leymann - Deutsche Telekom, - Winterfeldtstrasse 21-27, - 10781 Berlin, Germany. + Deutsche Telekom AG, + Winterfeldtstrasse 21, + Berlin 10781, Germany. E-mail: N.Leymann@telekom.de