draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04.txt 
MPLS W. George, Ed. MPLS W. George, Ed.
Internet-Draft Time Warner Cable Internet-Draft Time Warner Cable
Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro, Ed. Intended status: Informational C. Pignataro, Ed.
Expires: May 1, 2015 Cisco Expires: May 29, 2015 Cisco
October 28, 2014 November 25, 2014
Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-03 draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04
Abstract Abstract
This document reviews the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) This document reviews the Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies gaps that must protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies gaps that must
be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and
applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This document is applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This document is
not intended to highlight a particular vendor's implementation (or intended to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite,
lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality, but and not to highlight particular vendor implementations (or lack
rather to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite. thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality.
In the data plane, MPLS fully supports IPv6 and MPLS labeled packets
can be carried over IPv6 packets in a variety of encapsulations.
However, support for IPv6 among MPLS control plane protocols, MPLS
applications, MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM),
and MIB modules is mixed, with some protocols having major gaps. For
most major gaps work is in progress to upgrade the relevant
protocols.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 May 1, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. MPLS Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. MPLS Data Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. MPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. MPLS Control Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Multipoint LDP (mLDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.2. Multipoint LDP (mLDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.3. RSVP - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.3. RSVP - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3.2. RSVP-TE - Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) . . . . . . 7 3.2.3.2. RSVP-TE - Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) . . . . . . 7
3.2.3.3. RSVP-TE Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.3.3. RSVP-TE Fast Reroute (FRR) . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.4. Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.4. Path Computation Element (PCE) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.5. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.5. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.6. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) . 8 3.2.6. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) . 8
3.3. MPLS Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. MPLS Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1. Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) . . . . . . . 8 3.3.1. Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) . . . . . . . 9
3.3.1.1. Ethernet VPN (EVPN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.1.1. Ethernet VPN (EVPN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2. Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) . . . . . . . 10 3.3.2. Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) . . . . . . . 10
3.3.2.1. IPv6 Provider Edge/IPv4 Provider Edge (6PE/4PE) . 10 3.3.2.1. IPv6 Provider Edge/IPv4 Provider Edge (6PE/4PE) . 10
3.3.2.2. IPv6 Virtual Private Extension/IPv4 Virtual 3.3.2.2. IPv6 Virtual Private Extension/IPv4 Virtual
Private Extension (6VPE/4VPE) . . . . . . . . . . 11 Private Extension (6VPE/4VPE) . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2.3. BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family 3.3.2.3. BGP Encapsulation Subsequent Address Family
Identifier (SAFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Identifier (SAFI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3.2.4. Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPN (MVPN) . . . . . . . 11 3.3.2.4. Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP VPN (MVPN) . . . . . . . 11
3.3.3. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.3. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4. MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (MPLS 3.4. MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (MPLS
OAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 OAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.1. Extended ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.4.1. Extended ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) . . . . . . . . . 14 3.4.2. Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) . . . . . . 15 3.4.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) . . . . . . 16
3.4.4. Pseudowire OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.4.4. Pseudowire OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.5. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM . . . . . . . . 16 3.4.5. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM . . . . . . . . 16
3.5. MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.5. MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Gap Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Gap Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IPv6 is an integral part of modern network deployments. At the time IPv6 [RFC2460] is an integral part of modern network deployments. At
when this document was written, the majority of these IPv6 the time when this document was written, the majority of these IPv6
deployments were using dual-stack implementations, where IPv4 and deployments were using dual-stack implementations, where IPv4 and
IPv6 are supported equally on many or all of the network nodes, and IPv6 are supported equally on many or all of the network nodes, and
single-stack primarily referred to IPv4-only devices. Dual-stack single-stack primarily referred to IPv4-only devices. Dual-stack
deployments provide a useful margin for protocols and features that deployments provide a useful margin for protocols and features that
are not currently capable of operating solely over IPv6, because they are not currently capable of operating solely over IPv6, because they
can continue using IPv4 as necessary. However, as IPv6 deployment can continue using IPv4 as necessary. However, as IPv6 deployment
and usage becomes more pervasive, and IPv4 exhaustion begins driving and usage becomes more pervasive, and IPv4 exhaustion begins driving
changes in address consumption behaviors, there is an increasing changes in address consumption behaviors, there is an increasing
likelihood that many networks will need to start operating some or likelihood that many networks will need to start operating some or
all of their network nodes either as primarily IPv6 (most functions all of their network nodes either as primarily IPv6 (most functions
skipping to change at page 3, line 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 41
provisioned on the device). This transition toward IPv6-only provisioned on the device). This transition toward IPv6-only
operation exposes any gaps where features, protocols, or operation exposes any gaps where features, protocols, or
implementations are still reliant on IPv4 for proper function. To implementations are still reliant on IPv4 for proper function. To
that end, and in the spirit of the recommendation in RFC 6540 that end, and in the spirit of the recommendation in RFC 6540
[RFC6540] that implementations need to stop requiring IPv4 for proper [RFC6540] that implementations need to stop requiring IPv4 for proper
and complete function, this document reviews the Multi-Protocol Label and complete function, this document reviews the Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies Switching (MPLS) protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies
gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols
and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks and networks that and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks and networks that
are primarily IPv6 (hereafter referred to as IPv6-primary). This are primarily IPv6 (hereafter referred to as IPv6-primary). This
document is not intended to highlight a particular vendor's document is intended to focus on gaps in the standards defining the
implementation (or lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS MPLS suite, and not to highlight particular vendor implementations
functionality, but rather to focus on gaps in the standards defining (or lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality.
the MPLS suite.
2. Use Case 2. Use Case
This section discusses some drivers for ensuring that MPLS completely This section discusses some drivers for ensuring that MPLS completely
supports IPv6-only operation. It is not intended to be a supports IPv6-only operation. It is not intended to be a
comprehensive discussion of all potential use cases, but rather a comprehensive discussion of all potential use cases, but rather a
discussion of one use case to provide context and justification to discussion of one use case to provide context and justification to
undertake such a gap analysis. undertake such a gap analysis.
IP convergence is continuing to drive new classes of devices to begin IP convergence is continuing to drive new classes of devices to begin
skipping to change at page 5, line 28 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
Gap: None. Gap: None.
3.2. MPLS Control Plane 3.2. MPLS Control Plane
3.2.1. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) 3.2.1. Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) RFC 5036 [RFC5036] defines a set of Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) RFC 5036 [RFC5036] defines a set of
procedures for distribution of labels between label switch routers procedures for distribution of labels between label switch routers
that can use the labels for forwarding traffic. While LDP was that can use the labels for forwarding traffic. While LDP was
designed to use an IPv4 or dual-stack IP network, it has a number of designed to use an IPv4 or dual-stack IP network, it has a number of
deficiencies that prohibit it from working in an IPv6-only network. deficiencies that prevent it from working in an IPv6-only network.
LDP-IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] highlights some of the deficiencies LDP-IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] highlights some of the deficiencies
when LDP is enabled in IPv6 only or dual-stack networks, and when LDP is enabled in IPv6 only or dual-stack networks, and
specifies appropriate protocol changes. These deficiencies are specifies appropriate protocol changes. These deficiencies are
related to LSP mapping, LDP identifiers, LDP discovery, LDP session related to LSP mapping, LDP identifiers, LDP discovery, LDP session
establishment, next hop address and LDP Time To Live (TTL) security establishment, next hop address and LDP Time To Live (TTL) security
RFC 5082 [RFC5082] and RFC 6720 [RFC6720]. RFC 5082 [RFC5082] and RFC 6720 [RFC6720].
Gap: Major, update to RFC 5036 in progress via LDP-IPv6 Gap: Major, update to RFC 5036 in progress via LDP-IPv6
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] that should close this gap. [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] that should close this gap.
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 42
distributing the labels (for prefixes corresponding to any address- distributing the labels (for prefixes corresponding to any address-
family) between label switch routers so that they can use the labels family) between label switch routers so that they can use the labels
for forwarding the traffic. RFC 3107 allows BGP to distribute the for forwarding the traffic. RFC 3107 allows BGP to distribute the
label for IPv4 or IPv6 prefix in an IPv6 only network. label for IPv4 or IPv6 prefix in an IPv6 only network.
Gap: None. Gap: None.
3.2.6. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) 3.2.6. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) specification The Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) specification
includes singaling functional extensions RFC 3471 [RFC3471] and RSVP- includes signaling functional extensions RFC 3471 [RFC3471] and RSVP-
TE extensions RFC 3473 [RFC3473]. The gap analysis on Section 3.2.3 TE extensions RFC 3473 [RFC3473]. The gap analysis on Section 3.2.3
applies to these. applies to these.
RFC 4558 [RFC4558] specifies Node-ID Based RSVP Hello Messages with RFC 4558 [RFC4558] specifies Node-ID Based RSVP Hello Messages with
capability for both IPv4 and IPv6. RFC 4990 [RFC4990] clarifies the capability for both IPv4 and IPv6. RFC 4990 [RFC4990] clarifies the
use of IPv6 addresses in GMPLS networks including handling in the MIB use of IPv6 addresses in GMPLS networks including handling in the MIB
modules. modules.
Section 5.3, second paragraph of RFC 6370 [RFC6370] describes the Section 5.3, second paragraph of RFC 6370 [RFC6370] describes the
mapping from an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) LSP_ID to RSVP-TE mapping from an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) LSP_ID to RSVP-TE
skipping to change at page 9, line 7 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
3.3.1. Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN) 3.3.1. Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (L2VPN)
L2VPN RFC 4664 [RFC4664] specifies two fundamentally different kinds L2VPN RFC 4664 [RFC4664] specifies two fundamentally different kinds
of Layer 2 VPN services that a service provider could offer to a of Layer 2 VPN services that a service provider could offer to a
customer: Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN customer: Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN
Service (VPLS). RFC 4447 [RFC4447] and RFC 4762 [RFC4762] specify Service (VPLS). RFC 4447 [RFC4447] and RFC 4762 [RFC4762] specify
the LDP protocol changes to instantiate VPWS and VPLS services the LDP protocol changes to instantiate VPWS and VPLS services
respectively in an MPLS network using LDP as the signaling protocol. respectively in an MPLS network using LDP as the signaling protocol.
This is complemented by RFC 6074 [RFC6074], which specifies a set of This is complemented by RFC 6074 [RFC6074], which specifies a set of
procedures for instantiating L2VPNs (e.g. VPWS, VPLS) using BGP as procedures for instantiating L2VPNs (e.g., VPWS, VPLS) using BGP as
discovery protocol and LDP as well as L2TPv3 as signaling protocol. discovery protocol and LDP as well as L2TPv3 as signaling protocol.
RFC 4761 [RFC4761] and RFC 6624 [RFC6624] specify BGP protocol RFC 4761 [RFC4761] and RFC 6624 [RFC6624] specify BGP protocol
changes to instantiate VPLS and VPWS services in an MPLS network, changes to instantiate VPLS and VPWS services in an MPLS network,
using BGP for both discovery and signaling. using BGP for both discovery and signaling.
In an IPv6-only MPLS network, use of L2VPN represents connection of In an IPv6-only MPLS network, use of L2VPN represents connection of
Layer 2 islands over an IPv6 MPLS core, and very few changes are Layer 2 islands over an IPv6 MPLS core, and very few changes are
necessary to support operation over an IPv6-only network. The L2VPN necessary to support operation over an IPv6-only network. The L2VPN
signaling protocol is either BGP or LDP in an MPLS network, and both signaling protocol is either BGP or LDP in an MPLS network, and both
can run directly over IPv6 core infrastructure, as well as IPv6 edge can run directly over IPv6 core infrastructure, as well as IPv6 edge
skipping to change at page 9, line 40 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
RFC 6073 [RFC6073] defines the new LDP Pseudowire (PW) Switching RFC 6073 [RFC6073] defines the new LDP Pseudowire (PW) Switching
Point PE TLV, which supports IPv4 and IPv6. Point PE TLV, which supports IPv4 and IPv6.
Gap: Minor. RFC 6074 needs to be updated. Gap: Minor. RFC 6074 needs to be updated.
3.3.1.1. Ethernet VPN (EVPN) 3.3.1.1. Ethernet VPN (EVPN)
Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] defines a method for using Ethernet VPN (EVPN) [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] defines a method for using
BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs. Because it can use functions in LDP BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs. Because it can use functions in LDP
and mLDP, as well as RFC 7117 [RFC7117] Multicast VPLS, it inherits and mLDP, as well as RFC 7117 [RFC7117] Multicast VPLS, it inherits
gaps previously identified in LDP (Section 3.2.1) and RFC 6074 gaps previously identified in LDP (Section 3.2.1). Once those gaps
[RFC6074]. Once those gaps are resolved, it should function properly are resolved, it should function properly on IPv6-only networks as
on IPv6-only networks as defined. defined.
Gap: Major for LDP, update to RFC 5036 in progress via LDP-IPv6 Gap: Major for LDP, update to RFC 5036 in progress via LDP-IPv6
[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] that should close this gap (see xref [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] that should close this gap (see
target="LDP"/>). Minor for RFC 6074 [RFC6074], which needs to be Section 3.2.1).
updated.
3.3.2. Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) 3.3.2. Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN)
RFC 4364 [RFC4364] defines a method by which a Service Provider may RFC 4364 [RFC4364] defines a method by which a Service Provider may
use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for
its customers. The following use cases arise in the context of this its customers. The following use cases arise in the context of this
gap analysis: gap analysis:
1. Connecting IPv6 islands over IPv6-only MPLS network 1. Connecting IPv6 islands over IPv6-only MPLS network
2. Connecting IPv4 islands over IPv6-only MPLS network 2. Connecting IPv4 islands over IPv6-only MPLS network
Both use cases require mapping an IP packet to an IPv6-signaled LSP. Both use cases require mapping an IP packet to an IPv6-signaled LSP.
RFC 4364 defines Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs) for IPv4 RFC 4364 defines Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks (L3VPNs) for IPv4
only and has references to 32-bit BGP next hop addresses. RFC 4659 only and has references to 32-bit BGP next hop addresses. RFC 4659
[RFC4659] adds support for IPv6 on L3VPNs including 128-bit BGP next [RFC4659] adds support for IPv6 on L3VPNs including 128-bit BGP next
hop addresses, and discusses operation whether IPv6 is the payload or hop addresses, and discusses operation whether IPv6 is the payload or
the underlying transport address family. However, RFC 4659 does not the underlying transport address family. However, RFC 4659 does not
formally update RFC 4364, and thus an implementer may miss this formally update RFC 4364, and thus an implementer may miss this
additional set of standards unless it is explicitly identified additional set of standards unless it is explicitly identified
independently of the base functionality defined in RFC 4364. An independently of the base functionality defined in RFC 4364.
erratum has been filed to correct this metadata problem. Further, Further, section 1 of RFC 4659 explicitly identifies use case number
section 1 of RFC 4659 explicitly identifies use case number 2 as out 2 as out of scope for the document.
of scope for the document.
The authors do not believe that there are any additional issues The authors do not believe that there are any additional issues
encountered when using L2TPv3, RSVP, or GRE (instead of MPLS) as encountered when using L2TPv3, RSVP, or GRE (instead of MPLS) as
transport on an IPv6-only network. transport on an IPv6-only network.
Gap: Major. RFC 4659 needs to be updated to explicitly cover use Gap: Major. RFC 4659 needs to be updated to explicitly cover use
case number 2. (Discussed in further detail below) case number 2. (Discussed in further detail below)
3.3.2.1. IPv6 Provider Edge/IPv4 Provider Edge (6PE/4PE) 3.3.2.1. IPv6 Provider Edge/IPv4 Provider Edge (6PE/4PE)
skipping to change at page 13, line 9 skipping to change at page 13, line 22
MPLS-TP does not require IP (see section 2 of RFC 5921 [RFC5921]) and MPLS-TP does not require IP (see section 2 of RFC 5921 [RFC5921]) and
should not be affected by operation on an IPv6-only network. should not be affected by operation on an IPv6-only network.
Therefore this is considered out of scope for this document, but is Therefore this is considered out of scope for this document, but is
included for completeness. included for completeness.
Although not required, MPLS-TP can use IP. One such example is Although not required, MPLS-TP can use IP. One such example is
included in Section 3.2.6, where MPLS-TP identifiers can be derived included in Section 3.2.6, where MPLS-TP identifiers can be derived
from valid IPv4 addresses. from valid IPv4 addresses.
Gap: None. Gap: None. MPLS-TP does not require IP.
3.4. MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (MPLS OAM) 3.4. MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (MPLS OAM)
For MPLS LSPs, there are primarily three Operations, Administration, For MPLS LSPs, there are primarily three Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms: Extended ICMP RFC 4884 [RFC4884] and Maintenance (OAM) mechanisms: Extended ICMP RFC 4884 [RFC4884]
RFC 4950 [RFC4950], LSP Ping RFC 4379 [RFC4379], and Bidirectional RFC 4950 [RFC4950], LSP Ping RFC 4379 [RFC4379], and Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS LSPs RFC 5884 [RFC5884]. For Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS LSPs RFC 5884 [RFC5884]. For
MPLS Pseudowires, there is also Virtual Circuit Connectivity MPLS Pseudowires, there is also Virtual Circuit Connectivity
Verification (VCCV) RFC 5085 [RFC5085] RFC 5885 [RFC5885]. Most of Verification (VCCV) RFC 5085 [RFC5085] RFC 5885 [RFC5885]. Most of
these mechanisms work in pure IPv6 environments, but there are some these mechanisms work in pure IPv6 environments, but there are some
skipping to change at page 15, line 26 skipping to change at page 15, line 38
o the LSP is signaled over IPv6 o the LSP is signaled over IPv6
Packets will expire at LSP interior routers. According to RFC 4379, Packets will expire at LSP interior routers. According to RFC 4379,
the interior router must parse the IPv4 Echo Request, and then, send the interior router must parse the IPv4 Echo Request, and then, send
an IPv4 Echo Reply. However, the LSP interior router is not an IPv4 Echo Reply. However, the LSP interior router is not
IPv4-aware. It cannot parse the IPv4 Echo Request, nor can it send IPv4-aware. It cannot parse the IPv4 Echo Request, nor can it send
an IPv4 Echo Reply. So, no reply is sent. an IPv4 Echo Reply. So, no reply is sent.
The mechanism described in RFC 4379 also does not sufficiently The mechanism described in RFC 4379 also does not sufficiently
explain the behaviour in certain IPv6-specific scenarios. For explain the behavior in certain IPv6-specific scenarios. For
example, RFC 4379 defines the K value as 28 octets when Address example, RFC 4379 defines the K value as 28 octets when Address
Family is set to IPv6 Unnumbered, but it doesn't describe how to Family is set to IPv6 Unnumbered, but it doesn't describe how to
carry a 32 bit LSR Router ID in the 128 bit Downstream IP Address carry a 32 bit LSR Router ID in the 128 bit Downstream IP Address
Field. Field.
Gap: Major. LSP ping uses IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, IP version Gap: Major. LSP ping uses IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, IP version
mismatches may cause dropped messages, unclear mapping from LSR mismatches may cause dropped messages and unclear mapping from LSR
Router ID to Downstream IP Address. Router ID to Downstream IP Address.
3.4.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) 3.4.3. Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)
The BFD specification for MPLS LSPs RFC 5884 [RFC5884] is defined for The BFD specification for MPLS LSPs RFC 5884 [RFC5884] is defined for
IPv4 as well as IPv6 versions of MPLS FECs (see Section 3.1 of RFC IPv4 as well as IPv6 versions of MPLS FECs (see Section 3.1 of RFC
5884). Additionally the BFD packet is encapsulated over UDP and 5884). Additionally the BFD packet is encapsulated over UDP and
specified to run over both IPv4 and IPv6 (see Section 7 of RFC 5884). specified to run over both IPv4 and IPv6 (see Section 7 of RFC 5884).
Gap: None. Gap: None.
skipping to change at page 16, line 18 skipping to change at page 16, line 35
Gap: None. Gap: None.
3.4.5. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM 3.4.5. MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM
As with MPLS-TP, MPLS-TP OAM RFC 6371 [RFC6371] does not require IP As with MPLS-TP, MPLS-TP OAM RFC 6371 [RFC6371] does not require IP
or existing MPLS OAM functions, and should not be affected by or existing MPLS OAM functions, and should not be affected by
operation on an IPv6-only network. Therefore, this is out of scope operation on an IPv6-only network. Therefore, this is out of scope
for this document, but is included for completeness. Although not for this document, but is included for completeness. Although not
required, MPLS-TP can use IP. required, MPLS-TP can use IP.
Gap: None. Gap: None. MPLS-TP OAM does not require IP.
3.5. MIB Modules 3.5. MIB Modules
RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS. These RFC 3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS. These
lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and
MplsLsrIdentifier. These textual conventions are used in the MPLS TE MplsLsrIdentifier. These textual conventions are used in the MPLS TE
Management Information Base (MIB) specification RFC 3812 [RFC3812], Management Information Base (MIB) specification RFC 3812 [RFC3812],
GMPLS TE MIB specification RFC 4802 [RFC4802] and Fast ReRoute (FRR) GMPLS TE MIB specification RFC 4802 [RFC4802] and Fast ReRoute (FRR)
extension RFC 6445 [RFC6445]. RFC 3811bis extension RFC 6445 [RFC6445]. RFC 3811bis
[I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis] tries to resolve this gap by marking [I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis] tries to resolve this gap by marking
this textual convention as obsolete. this textual convention as obsolete.
For MPLS-TP, RFC 4990 [RFC4990] discusses how to handle IPv6 sources
and destinations in the MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)
Management Information Base (MIB) modules.
The other MIB specifications for LSR RFC 3813 [RFC3813], LDP RFC 3815 The other MIB specifications for LSR RFC 3813 [RFC3813], LDP RFC 3815
[RFC3815] and TE RFC 4220 [RFC4220] have support for both IPv4 and [RFC3815] and TE RFC 4220 [RFC4220] have support for both IPv4 and
IPv6. IPv6.
Gap: Major. Work underway to update RFC 3811 via RFC 3811bis Lastly, RFC 4990 [RFC4990] discusses how to handle IPv6 sources and
[I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis], may also need to update RFC 3812, RFC destinations in the MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering (TE)
4802, and RFC 6445, which depend on it. Management Information Base (MIB) modules. In particular, Section 8
of RFC 4990 [RFC4990] describes a method of defining or monitoring an
LSP tunnel using the MPLS-TE and GMPLS-TE MIB modules, working around
some of the limitations in RFC 3811 [RFC3811].
Gap: Minor. Section 8 of RFC 4990 [RFC4990] describes a method to
handle IPv6 addresses in the MPLS-TE RFC 3812 [RFC3812] and GMPLS-TE
RFC 4802 [RFC4802] MIB modules. Work underway to update RFC 3811 via
RFC 3811bis [I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis], may also need to update RFC
3812, RFC 4802, and RFC 6445, which depend on it.
4. Gap Summary 4. Gap Summary
This draft has reviewed a wide variety of MPLS features and protocols This draft has reviewed a wide variety of MPLS features and protocols
to determine their suitability for use on IPv6-only or IPv6-primary to determine their suitability for use on IPv6-only or IPv6-primary
networks. While some parts of the MPLS suite will function properly networks. While some parts of the MPLS suite will function properly
without additional changes, gaps have been identified in others, without additional changes, gaps have been identified in others,
which will need to be addressed with follow-on work. This section which will need to be addressed with follow-on work. This section
will summarize those gaps, along with pointers to any work in will summarize those gaps, along with pointers to any work in
progress to address them. Note that because the referenced drafts progress to address them. Note that because the referenced drafts
are works in progress and do not have consensus at the time of this are works in progress and do not have consensus at the time of this
document's publication, there could be other solutions proposed at a document's publication, there could be other solutions proposed at a
future time, and the pointers in this document should not be future time, and the pointers in this document should not be
considered normative in any way. Additionally, work in progress on considered normative in any way. Additionally, work in progress on
new features that use MPLS protocols will need to ensure that those new features that use MPLS protocols will need to ensure that those
protocols support operation on IPv6-only or IPv6-primary networks, or protocols support operation on IPv6-only or IPv6-primary networks, or
explicitly identify any dependencies on existing gaps that, once explicitly identify any dependencies on existing gaps that, once
resolved, will allow proper IPv6-only operation. resolved, will allow proper IPv6-only operation.
Identifed gaps in MPLS for IPv6-only networks Identified gaps in MPLS for IPv6-only networks
+---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
| Item | Gap | Addressed in | | Item | Gap | Addressed in |
+---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
| LDP | LSP mapping, LDP | LDP-IPv6 | | LDP | LSP mapping, LDP | LDP-IPv6 |
| S.3.2.1 | identifiers, LDP | [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] | | S.3.2.1 | identifiers, LDP | [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] |
| | discovery, LDP session | | | | discovery, LDP session | |
| | establishment, next hop | | | | establishment, next hop | |
| | address and LDP TTL | | | | address and LDP TTL | |
| | security | | | | security | |
skipping to change at page 18, line 5 skipping to change at page 18, line 44
| | dropped messages in IP | | | | dropped messages in IP | |
| | version mismatch | | | | version mismatch | |
+---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
| MIB | RFC 3811 [RFC3811] no | RFC 3811bis | | MIB | RFC 3811 [RFC3811] no | RFC 3811bis |
| Modules | IPv6 textual convention | [I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis] | | Modules | IPv6 textual convention | [I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis] |
| S.3.5 | | | | S.3.5 | | |
+---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+ +---------+--------------------------+------------------------------+
Table 1: IPv6-only MPLS Gaps Table 1: IPv6-only MPLS Gaps
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Alvaro Retana, Andrew Yourtchenko, Loa The authors wish to thank Alvaro Retana, Andrew Yourtchenko, Loa
Andersson, David Allan, Mach Chen, Mustapha Aissaoui, and Mark Tinka Andersson, David Allan, Mach Chen, Mustapha Aissaoui, and Mark Tinka
for their detailed reviews, as well as Brian Haberman, Joel Jaeggli, for their detailed reviews, as well as Brian Haberman, Joel Jaeggli,
Adrian Farrel, and Nobo Akiya for their comments. Adrian Farrel, Nobo Akiya, Francis Dupont, and Tobias Gondrom for
their comments.
6. Contributing Authors 6. Contributing Authors
The following people have contributed text to this draft: The following people have contributed text to this draft:
Rajiv Asati Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7025 Kit Creek Road 7025 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US US
skipping to change at page 19, line 39 skipping to change at page 20, line 32
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
Changing the address family used for MPLS network operation does not Changing the address family used for MPLS network operation does not
fundamentally alter the security considerations currently extant in fundamentally alter the security considerations currently extant in
any of the specifics of the protocol or its features, however, any of the specifics of the protocol or its features, however,
follow-on work recommended by this gap analysis will need to address follow-on work recommended by this gap analysis will need to address
any effects of the use of IPv6 in their modifications may have on any effects of the use of IPv6 in their modifications may have on
security. security.
9. Informative References 9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definitions of Textual
Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Management", RFC 3811, June 2004.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC
4023, March 2005.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006.
[RFC4817] Townsley, M., Pignataro, C., Wainner, S., Seely, T., and
J. Young, "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling
Protocol Version 3", RFC 4817, March 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074, January
2011.
[RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.
[RFC6512] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Napierala, M., and N. Leymann,
"Using Multipoint LDP When the Backbone Has No Route to
the Root", RFC 6512, February 2012.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn]
Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and J. Sajassi, A., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A., and J.
Uttaro, "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-ietf-l2vpn- Uttaro, "BGP MPLS Based Ethernet VPN", draft-ietf-l2vpn-
evpn-11 (work in progress), October 2014. evpn-11 (work in progress), October 2014.
[I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri] [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri]
Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., and U. Joorde, "Encoding mLDP Wijnands, I., Rosen, E., and U. Joorde, "Encoding mLDP
FECs in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes", draft-ietf- FECs in the NLRI of BGP MCAST-VPN Routes", draft-ietf-
l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-07 (work in progress), October 2014. l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri-07 (work in progress), October 2014.
skipping to change at page 20, line 46 skipping to change at page 23, line 5
[I-D.smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix] [I-D.smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix]
Smith, M., "A Larger Loopback Prefix for IPv6", draft- Smith, M., "A Larger Loopback Prefix for IPv6", draft-
smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04 (work in smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix-04 (work in
progress), February 2013. progress), February 2013.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP
5, RFC 1918, February 1996. 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering [RFC3630] Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
(TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630, September
2003. 2003.
[RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definitions of Textual
Conventions (TCs) for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
Management", RFC 3811, June 2004.
[RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, [RFC3812] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering
(TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June (TE) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3812, June
2004. 2004.
[RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau, [RFC3813] Srinivasan, C., Viswanathan, A., and T. Nadeau,
"Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching
Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813, Router (LSR) Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3813,
June 2004. June 2004.
[RFC3815] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani, "Definitions [RFC3815] Cucchiara, J., Sjostrand, H., and J. Luciani, "Definitions
of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815, June (MPLS), Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 3815, June
2004. 2004.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC
4023, March 2005.
[RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute [RFC4090] Pan, P., Swallow, G., and A. Atlas, "Fast Reroute
Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels", RFC 4090, May
2005. 2005.
[RFC4220] Dubuc, M., Nadeau, T., and J. Lang, "Traffic Engineering [RFC4220] Dubuc, M., Nadeau, T., and J. Lang, "Traffic Engineering
Link Management Information Base", RFC 4220, November Link Management Information Base", RFC 4220, November
2005. 2005.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
February 2006.
[RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G. [RFC4447] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and G.
Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label
Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006.
[RFC4558] Ali, Z., Rahman, R., Prairie, D., and D. Papadimitriou, [RFC4558] Ali, Z., Rahman, R., Prairie, D., and D. Papadimitriou,
"Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello: "Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello:
A Clarification Statement", RFC 4558, June 2006. A Clarification Statement", RFC 4558, June 2006.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006. Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.
[RFC4659] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Carugi, M., and F. Le Faucheur,
"BGP-MPLS IP Virtual Private Network (VPN) Extension for
IPv6 VPN", RFC 4659, September 2006.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual [RFC4664] Andersson, L. and E. Rosen, "Framework for Layer 2 Virtual
Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006. Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 4664, September 2006.
[RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4761] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling", RFC
4761, January 2007. 4761, January 2007.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service [RFC4762] Lasserre, M. and V. Kompella, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling", (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling",
RFC 4762, January 2007. RFC 4762, January 2007.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, [RFC4798] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur,
"Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6 "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS Using IPv6
Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007. Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798, February 2007.
[RFC4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label [RFC4802] Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007. Information Base", RFC 4802, February 2007.
[RFC4817] Townsley, M., Pignataro, C., Wainner, S., Seely, T., and
J. Young, "Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling
Protocol Version 3", RFC 4817, March 2007.
[RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa, [RFC4875] Aggarwal, R., Papadimitriou, D., and S. Yasukawa,
"Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic "Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007. Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 4875, May 2007.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, [RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884, "Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
April 2007. April 2007.
[RFC4950] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP [RFC4950] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro, "ICMP
Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950, Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching", RFC 4950,
August 2007. August 2007.
[RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of [RFC4990] Shiomoto, K., Papneja, R., and R. Rabbat, "Use of
Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Addresses in Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, September 2007. (GMPLS) Networks", RFC 4990, September 2007.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C. [RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007. (GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.
[RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit [RFC5085] Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual Circuit
Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control Channel for
Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007. Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
[RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang,
"OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element
skipping to change at page 25, line 5 skipping to change at page 26, line 14
[RFC6006] Zhao, Q., King, D., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., Ali, Z., [RFC6006] Zhao, Q., King, D., Verhaeghe, F., Takeda, T., Ali, Z.,
and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element and J. Meuric, "Extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint
Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 6006, Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 6006,
September 2010. September 2010.
[RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M. [RFC6073] Martini, L., Metz, C., Nadeau, T., Bocci, M., and M.
Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, January 2011. Aissaoui, "Segmented Pseudowire", RFC 6073, January 2011.
[RFC6074] Rosen, E., Davie, B., Radoaca, V., and W. Luo,
"Provisioning, Auto-Discovery, and Signaling in Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)", RFC 6074, January
2011.
[RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic [RFC6119] Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic
Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, February 2011. Engineering in IS-IS", RFC 6119, February 2011.
[RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport
Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers", RFC 6370, September 2011.
[RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and [RFC6371] Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks", Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks",
RFC 6371, September 2011. RFC 6371, September 2011.
[RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas, [RFC6388] Wijnands, IJ., Minei, I., Kompella, K., and B. Thomas,
"Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to- "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-
Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched
Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011. Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011.
[RFC6445] Nadeau, T., Koushik, A., and R. Cetin, "Multiprotocol [RFC6445] Nadeau, T., Koushik, A., and R. Cetin, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management
Information Base for Fast Reroute", RFC 6445, November Information Base for Fast Reroute", RFC 6445, November
2011. 2011.
[RFC6512] Wijnands, IJ., Rosen, E., Napierala, M., and N. Leymann,
"Using Multipoint LDP When the Backbone Has No Route to
the Root", RFC 6512, February 2012.
[RFC6513] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP [RFC6513] Rosen, E. and R. Aggarwal, "Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012. VPNs", RFC 6513, February 2012.
[RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP [RFC6514] Aggarwal, R., Rosen, E., Morin, T., and Y. Rekhter, "BGP
Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP Encodings and Procedures for Multicast in MPLS/BGP IP
VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012. VPNs", RFC 6514, February 2012.
[RFC6540] George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard, [RFC6540] George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard,
"IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177, "IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177,
RFC 6540, April 2012. RFC 6540, April 2012.
 End of changes. 38 change blocks. 
111 lines changed or deleted 131 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/