draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-00.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-01.txt 
Network Working Group I. Minei (Editor) Network Working Group I. Minei (Editor)
Internet-Draft K. Kompella Internet-Draft K. Kompella
Expires: August 30, 2006 Juniper Networks Expires: December 27, 2006 Juniper Networks
I. Wijnands (Editor) I. Wijnands (Editor)
B. Thomas B. Thomas
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
February 26, 2006 June 25, 2006
Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-00 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2006. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract Abstract
This document describes extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol This document describes extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol
(LDP) for the setup of point to multi-point (P2MP) and multipoint-to- (LDP) for the setup of point to multi-point (P2MP) and multipoint-to-
multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi-Protocol multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi-Protocol
skipping to change at page 2, line 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
scope of this document. scope of this document.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Setting up P2MP LSPs with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Setting up P2MP LSPs with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. The P2MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. The P2MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. The LDP MP Opaque Value Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. The LDP MP Opaque Value Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Using the P2MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.1. The Generic LSP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3.1. Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Using the P2MP FEC Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.2. Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3.1. Label Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. Shared Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3.2. Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Setting up MP2MP LSPs with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Shared Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. The MP2MP downstream and upstream FEC elements. . . . . . 10 4. Setting up MP2MP LSPs with LDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Using the MP2MP FEC elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. The MP2MP downstream and upstream FEC elements. . . . . . 11
4.2.1. MP2MP Label Map upstream and downstream . . . . . . . 12 4.2. Using the MP2MP FEC elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2. MP2MP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.1. MP2MP Label Map upstream and downstream . . . . . . . 13
5. Upstream label allocation on Ethernet networks . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.2. MP2MP Label Withdraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. mLDP wildcard FECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5.1. Label Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. Label Withdraw Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Contributing authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3. Label Release Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Upstream label allocation on Ethernet networks . . . . . . . . 17
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Root node redundancy for MP2MP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.1. Root node redundancy procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Make before break . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.1. Protocol event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Contributing authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LDP protocol is described in [1]. It defines mechanisms for The LDP protocol is described in [1]. It defines mechanisms for
setting up point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-point (MP2P) LSPs setting up point-to-point (P2P) and multipoint-to-point (MP2P) LSPs
in the network. This document describes extensions to LDP for in the network. This document describes extensions to LDP for
setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to-multipoint setting up point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and multipoint-to-multipoint
(MP2MP) LSPs. These are collectively referred to as multipoint LSPs (MP2MP) LSPs. These are collectively referred to as multipoint LSPs
(MP LSPs). A P2MP LSP allows traffic from a single root (or ingress) (MP LSPs). A P2MP LSP allows traffic from a single root (or ingress)
node to be delivered to a number of leaf (or egress) nodes. A MP2MP node to be delivered to a number of leaf (or egress) nodes. A MP2MP
skipping to change at page 6, line 13 skipping to change at page 6, line 13
Address Lengths are defined at present. Address Lengths are defined at present.
If the Address Length doesn't match the defined length for the If the Address Length doesn't match the defined length for the
Address Family, the receiver SHOULD abort processing the message Address Family, the receiver SHOULD abort processing the message
containing the FEC Element, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification containing the FEC Element, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification
message to its LDP peer signaling an error. message to its LDP peer signaling an error.
If a FEC TLV contains a P2MP FEC Element, the P2MP FEC Element MUST If a FEC TLV contains a P2MP FEC Element, the P2MP FEC Element MUST
be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV. be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.
A P2MP FEC with the Root Node Address octets filled with zeros and
Opaque Length set to 0 is a wildcard P2MP FEC for all P2MPs FECs of
matching root node address family.
2.2. The LDP MP Opaque Value Element 2.2. The LDP MP Opaque Value Element
The LDP MP Opaque Value Element is used in the P2MP and MP2MP FEC The LDP MP Opaque Value Element is used in the P2MP and MP2MP FEC
elements defined in subsequent sections. It carries information that elements defined in subsequent sections. It carries information that
is meaningful to leaf (and bud) LSRs, but need not be interpreted by is meaningful to leaf (and bud) LSRs, but need not be interpreted by
non-leaf LSRs. non-leaf LSRs.
The LDP MP Opaque Value Element is encoded as follows: The LDP MP Opaque Value Element is encoded as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 46
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type: The type of the LDP MP Opaque Value Element is to be assigned Type: The type of the LDP MP Opaque Value Element is to be assigned
by IANA. by IANA.
Length: The length of the Value field, in octets. Length: The length of the Value field, in octets.
Value: String of Length octets, to be interpreted as specified by the Value: String of Length octets, to be interpreted as specified by the
Type field. Type field.
2.2.1. The Generic LSP Identifier
The generic LSP identifier is a type of Opaque Value Element encoded
as follows:
Type: 1 (to be assigned by IANA)
Length: 4
Value: A 32bit integer, unique in the context of the root, as
identified by the root's address.
This type of opaque value element is recommended when mapping of
traffic to LSPs is non-algorithmic, and done by means outside LDP.
2.3. Using the P2MP FEC Element 2.3. Using the P2MP FEC Element
This section defines the rules for the processing and propagation of This section defines the rules for the processing and propagation of
the P2MP FEC Element. The following notation is used in the the P2MP FEC Element. The following notation is used in the
processing rules: processing rules:
1. P2MP FEC Element <X, Y>: a FEC Element with Root Node Address X 1. P2MP FEC Element <X, Y>: a FEC Element with Root Node Address X
and Opaque Value Y. and Opaque Value Y.
2. P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L>: a Label Map message with a FEC TLV with 2. P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L>: a Label Map message with a FEC TLV with
skipping to change at page 7, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
leaf node. leaf node.
2.3.1. Label Map 2.3.1. Label Map
The following lists procedures for generating and processing P2MP The following lists procedures for generating and processing P2MP
Label Map messages for nodes that participate in a P2MP LSP. An LSR Label Map messages for nodes that participate in a P2MP LSP. An LSR
should apply those procedures that apply to it, based on its role in should apply those procedures that apply to it, based on its role in
the P2MP LSP. the P2MP LSP.
For the approach described here we use downstream assigned labels. For the approach described here we use downstream assigned labels.
On Ethernet networks this may be less optimal, see Section 5. On Ethernet networks this may be less optimal, see Section 6.
2.3.1.1. Determining one's 'upstream LSR' 2.3.1.1. Determining one's 'upstream LSR'
A node Z that is part of P2MP LSP <X, Y> determines the LDP peer U A node Z that is part of P2MP LSP <X, Y> determines the LDP peer U
which lies on the best path from Z to the root node X. If there are which lies on the best path from Z to the root node X. If there are
more than one such LDP peers, only one of them is picked. U is Z's more than one such LDP peers, only one of them is picked. U is Z's
"Upstream LSR" for <X, Y>. "Upstream LSR" for <X, Y>.
When there are several candidate upstream LSRs, the LSR MAY select
one upstream LSR using the following procedure:
1. The candidate upstream LSRs are numbered from lower to higher IP
address
2. The following hash is performed: H = (Sum Opaque value) modulo N,
where N is the number of candidate upstream LSRs
3. The selected upstream LSR U is the LSR that has the number H.
This allows for load balancing of a set of LSPs among a set of
candidate upstream LSRs, while ensuring that on a LAN interface a
single upstream LSR is selected.
2.3.1.2. Leaf Operation 2.3.1.2. Leaf Operation
A leaf node Z of P2MP LSP <X, Y> determines its upstream LSR U for A leaf node Z of P2MP LSP <X, Y> determines its upstream LSR U for
<X, Y> as per Section 2.3.1.1, allocates a label L, and sends a P2MP <X, Y> as per Section 2.3.1.1, allocates a label L, and sends a P2MP
Label Map <X, Y, L> to U. Label Map <X, Y, L> to U.
2.3.1.3. Transit Node operation 2.3.1.3. Transit Node operation
Suppose a transit node Z receives a P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L> over Suppose a transit node Z receives a P2MP Label Map <X, Y, L> over
interface I. Z checks whether it already has state for <X, Y>. If interface I. Z checks whether it already has state for <X, Y>. If
skipping to change at page 11, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
4.1. The MP2MP downstream and upstream FEC elements. 4.1. The MP2MP downstream and upstream FEC elements.
The structure, encoding and error handling for the MP2MP downstream The structure, encoding and error handling for the MP2MP downstream
and upstream FEC elements are the same as for the P2MP FEC element and upstream FEC elements are the same as for the P2MP FEC element
described in Section 2.1. The difference is that two new FEC types described in Section 2.1. The difference is that two new FEC types
are used: MP2MP downstream type (TBD) and MP2MP upstream type (TBD). are used: MP2MP downstream type (TBD) and MP2MP upstream type (TBD).
If a FEC TLV contains an MP2MP FEC Element, the MP2MP FEC Element If a FEC TLV contains an MP2MP FEC Element, the MP2MP FEC Element
MUST be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV. MUST be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.
A MP2MP Downstream FEC with the Root Node Address octets filled with
zeros and Opaque Length set to 0 is a wildcard MP2MP Downstream FEC
for all MP2MP Downstream FECs of matching root node address family.
Similarly, a MP2MP Upstream FEC with the Root Node Address octets
filled with zeros and Opaque Length set to 0 is a wildcard MP2MP
Upstream FEC for all MP2MP Upstream FECs of matching root node
address family.
4.2. Using the MP2MP FEC elements 4.2. Using the MP2MP FEC elements
This section defines the rules for the processing and propagation of This section defines the rules for the processing and propagation of
the MP2MP FEC elements. The following notation is used in the the MP2MP FEC elements. The following notation is used in the
processing rules: processing rules:
1. MP2MP downstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply downstream <X, Y>): an 1. MP2MP downstream LSP <X, Y> (or simply downstream <X, Y>): an
MP2MP LSP downstream path with root node address X and opaque MP2MP LSP downstream path with root node address X and opaque
value Y. value Y.
skipping to change at page 15, line 28 skipping to change at page 16, line 25
withdraw message is the same as for transit nodes, except that the withdraw message is the same as for transit nodes, except that the
root node would not propagate the Label Withdraw upstream (as it has root node would not propagate the Label Withdraw upstream (as it has
no upstream). no upstream).
4.2.2.4. MP2MP Upstream LSR change 4.2.2.4. MP2MP Upstream LSR change
The procedure for changing the upstream LSR is the same as documented The procedure for changing the upstream LSR is the same as documented
in Section 2.3.2.4, except it is applied to MP2MP FECs, using the in Section 2.3.2.4, except it is applied to MP2MP FECs, using the
procedures described in Section 4.2.1 through Section 4.2.2.3. procedures described in Section 4.2.1 through Section 4.2.2.3.
5. Upstream label allocation on Ethernet networks 5. mLDP wildcard FECs
P2MP, MP2MP Downstream and MP2MP Upstream FECs are examples of mLDP
Wildcard FECs. P2MP, and MP2MP Downstream Wildcard FECs may appear
only in Label Request, Label Withdraw and Label Release messages.
MP2MP Upstream Wildcard FECs may appear only in Label Withdraw and
Label Release messages. A label TLV object MUST not be present in
messages containing an mLDP wildcard FEC.
5.1. Label Request Message
Use of a Label Request Message is defined only for Wildcard versions
of the P2MP, and MP2MP Downstream FEC. An LSR sends a Label Request
Message containing an mLDP Wildcard FEC to requests the
readvertisement of all FECs of the specified address family. The
procedures defined above for various mLDP FEC types are to be
reapplied individually to any received Label Mapping advertisements.
5.2. Label Withdraw Message
An LSR sends a Label Withdraw Message containing an mLDP Wildcard FEC
when it wants to withdraw all the P2MP, MP2MP Upstream or MP2MP
Downstream FECs previously advertised. The same procedures defined
for the non Wildcard case apply except that instead of sending
individual label release messages only a single mLDP wildcard Label
Release message is sent to acknowledge completion of a mLDP wildcard
withdraw.
5.3. Label Release Message
An LSR sends an mLDP wildcard Label Release Message to acknowledge
the completion of processing for a mLDP wildcard withdraw. An LSR
may also send an unsolicited wildcard Label release to indicate to
that LDP neighbor that all previously send label mappings are to be
released. An LSR receiving an Label Release Message for a Wildcard
FEC MUST release all labels it assigned to this LSR for the given FEC
type and removes them from forwarding use.
6. Upstream label allocation on Ethernet networks
On Ethernet networks the upstream LSR will send a copy of the packet On Ethernet networks the upstream LSR will send a copy of the packet
to each receiver individually. If there is more then one receiver on to each receiver individually. If there is more then one receiver on
the Ethernet we don't take full benefit of the multi-access the Ethernet we don't take full benefit of the multi-access
capability of the network. We may optimize the bandwidth consumption capability of the network. We may optimize the bandwidth consumption
on the Ethernet and replication overhead on the upstream LSR by using on the Ethernet and replication overhead on the upstream LSR by using
upstream label allocation [5]. Procedures on how to distribute upstream label allocation [5]. Procedures on how to distribute
upstream labels using LDP is documented in [6]. upstream labels using LDP is documented in [6].
6. Security Considerations 7. Root node redundancy for MP2MP LSPs
MP2MP leaf nodes must use the same root node to setup the MP2MP LSP.
Otherwise there will be partitioned MP2MP LSP and traffic sourced by
some leafs is not received by others. Having a single root node for
a MP2MP LSP is a single point of failure, which is not preferred. We
need a fast and efficient mechanism to recover from a root node
failure.
7.1. Root node redundancy procedure
It is likely that the root node for a MP2MP LSP is defined
statically. The root node address may be configured on each leaf
statically or learned using a dynamic protocol. How MP2MP leafs
learn about the root node is out of the scope of this document. A
MP2MP LSP is uniquely identified by a opaque value and the root node
address. Suppose that for the same opaque value we define two root
node addresses and we build a tree to each root using the same opaque
value. Effectively these will be treated as different MP2MP LSPs in
the network. Since all leafs have setup a MP2MP LSP to each one of
the root nodes for this opaque value, a sending leaf may pick either
of the two MP2MP LSPs to forward a packet on. The leaf nodes will
receive the packet on one of the MP2MP LSPs, the client of the MP2MP
LSP does not care on which MP2MP LSP the packet was received from, as
long as they are for the same opaque value. The sending leaf MUST
only forward a packet on one MP2MP LSP at a given point in time. The
receiving leafs are unable to discard duplicate packets because they
accept on both LSPs. Using both these MP2MP LSPs we can implement
redundancy using the following procedures.
A sending leaf selects a single root node out of the available roots
for a given opaque value. A good strategy MAY be to look at the
unicast routing table and select a root that is closest according in
terms of unicast metric. As soon as the root address of our active
root disappears from the unicast routing table (or becomes less
attractive) due to root node or link failure we can select a new best
root address and start forwarding to it directly. If multiple root
nodes have the same unicast metric, the highest root node addresses
MAY be selected, or we MAY do per session load balancing over the
root nodes.
All leafs participating in a MP2MP LSP MUST join to all the available
root nodes for a give opaque value. Since the sending leaf may pick
any MP2MP LSP, it must be prepared to receive on it.
The advantage of pre-building multiple MP2MP LSPs for a single opaque
value is that we can converge from a root node failure as fast as the
unicast routing protocol is able to notify us. There is no need for
an additional protocol to advertise to the leaf nodes which root node
is the active root. The root selection is a local leaf policy that
does not need to be coordinated with other leafs. The disadvantage
is that we are using more label resources depending on how many root
nodes are defined.
8. Make before break
An upstream LSR is chosen based on the best path to reach the root of
the MP LSP. When the best path to reach the root changes it needs to
choose a new upstream LSR. Section 2.3.2.4 and Section 4.2.2.4
describes these procedures. When the best path to the root changes
the LSP may be broken and packet forwarding is interrupted, in that
case it needs to converge to a new upstream LSR ASAP. There are also
scenarios where the best path changed, but the LSP is still
forwarding packets. That happens when links come up or routing
metrics are changed. In that case it would like to build the new LSP
before it breaks the old LSP to minimize the traffic interruption.
The approuch described below deals with both scenarios and does not
require LDP to know which of the events above caused the upstream
router to change. The approuch below is an optional extention to the
MP LSP building procedures described in this draft.
8.1. Protocol event
An approach is to use additional signaling in LDP. Suppose a
downstream LSR-D is changing to a new upstream LSR-U for FEC-A, this
LSR-U may already be forwarding packets for this FEC-A. Based on the
existence of state for FEC-A, LSR-U will send a notification to the
LSR-D to initiate the switchover. The assumption is that if our
upstream LSR-U has state for the FEC-A and it has received a
notification from its upstream router, then this LSR is forwarding
packets for this FEC-A and it can send a notification back to
initiate the switchover. You could say there is an explicit
notification to tell the LSR it became part of the tree identified by
FEC-A. LSR-D can be in 3 different states.
1. There no state for a given FEC-A.
2. State for FEC-A has just been created and is waiting for
notification.
3. State for FEC-A exists and notification was received.
Suppose LSR-D sends a label mapping for FEC-A to LSR-U. LSR-U must
only reply with a notification to LSR-D if it is in state #3 as
described above. If LSR-U is in state 1 or 2, it should remember it
has received a label mapping from LSR-D which is waiting for a
notification. As soon as LSR-U received a notification from its
upstream LSR it can move to state #3 and trigger notifications to its
downstream LSR's that requested it. More details will be added in
the next revision of the draft.
9. Security Considerations
The same security considerations apply as for the base LDP The same security considerations apply as for the base LDP
specification, as described in [1]. specification, as described in [1].
7. IANA considerations 10. IANA considerations
This document creates a new name space (the LDP MP Opaque Value This document creates a new name space (the LDP MP Opaque Value
Element type) that is to be managed by IANA. Also, this document Element type) that is to be managed by IANA. Also, this document
requires allocation of three new LDP FEC element types: the P2MP requires allocation of three new LDP FEC element types: the P2MP
type, the MP2MP-up and the MP2MP-down types. type, the MP2MP-up and the MP2MP-down types.
8. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their
review and contribution: Nischal Sheth, Yakov Rekhter, Rahul review and contribution: Nischal Sheth, Yakov Rekhter, Rahul
Aggarwal, Arjen Boers, Eric Rosen, Nidhi Bhaskar, Toerless Eckert and Aggarwal, Arjen Boers, Eric Rosen, Nidhi Bhaskar, Toerless Eckert and
George Swallow. George Swallow.
9. Contributing authors 12. Contributing authors
Below is a list of the contributing authors in alphabetical order: Below is a list of the contributing authors in alphabetical order:
Shane Amante Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, LLC Level 3 Communications, LLC
1025 Eldorado Blvd 1025 Eldorado Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80021 Broomfield, CO 80021
US US
Email: Shane.Amante@Level3.com Email: Shane.Amante@Level3.com
skipping to change at page 17, line 45 skipping to change at page 21, line 38
Norway Norway
Email: lei.wang@telenor.com Email: lei.wang@telenor.com
IJsbrand Wijnands IJsbrand Wijnands
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
De kleetlaan 6a De kleetlaan 6a
1831 Diegem 1831 Diegem
Belgium Belgium
E-mail: ice@cisco.com E-mail: ice@cisco.com
10. References 13. References
10.1. Normative References 13.1. Normative References
[1] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B. [1] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A., and B.
Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. Thomas, "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700, [3] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
October 1994. October 1994.
skipping to change at page 18, line 28 skipping to change at page 22, line 20
draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-01 (work in progress), July 2005. draft-leroux-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-01 (work in progress), July 2005.
[5] Aggarwal, R., "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context [5] Aggarwal, R., "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context
Specific Label Space", draft-raggarwa-mpls-upstream-label-01 Specific Label Space", draft-raggarwa-mpls-upstream-label-01
(work in progress), October 2005. (work in progress), October 2005.
[6] Aggarwal, R. and J. Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for [6] Aggarwal, R. and J. Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label Assignment for
RSVP-TE and LDP", draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-ldp-upstream-00 (work RSVP-TE and LDP", draft-raggarwa-mpls-rsvp-ldp-upstream-00 (work
in progress), July 2005. in progress), July 2005.
10.2. Informative References 13.2. Informative References
[7] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual [7] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05 Private Networks (L2VPNs)", draft-ietf-l2vpn-l2-framework-05
(work in progress), June 2004. (work in progress), June 2004.
[8] Aggarwal, R., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE [8] Aggarwal, R., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point to Multipoint TE
LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-02 (work in progress), LSPs", draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-02 (work in progress),
July 2005. July 2005.
[9] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs", [9] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPNs",
 End of changes. 18 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 222 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/