draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming-03.txt   draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming-04.txt 
Network Working Group Z. Li Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft S. Zhuang Internet-Draft S. Zhuang
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: November 6, 2016 S. Lu Expires: May 3, 2017 S. Lu
Tencent Tencent
May 05, 2016 October 30, 2016
BGP Extensions for Service-Oriented MPLS Path Programming (MPP) BGP Extensions for Service-Oriented MPLS Path Programming (MPP)
draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming-03 draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming-04
Abstract Abstract
Service-oriented MPLS programming (SoMPP) is to provide customized Service-oriented MPLS programming (SoMPP) is to provide customized
service process based on flexible label combinations. BGP will play service process based on flexible label combinations. BGP will play
an important role for MPLS path programming to download programmed an important role for MPLS path programming to download programmed
MPLS path and map the service path to the transport path. This MPLS path and map the service path to the transport path. This
document defines BGP extensions to support service-oriented MPLS path document defines BGP extensions to support service-oriented MPLS path
programming. programming.
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 November 6, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
5.2. Specify Specific Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2. Specify Specific Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Route Flag Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Route Flag Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Destination Node Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Destination Node Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The label stack capability of MPLS would have been utilized well to The label stack capability of MPLS would have been utilized well to
implement flexible path programming to satisfy all kinds of service implement flexible path programming to satisfy all kinds of service
requirements. But in the distributed environment, the flexible requirements. But in the distributed environment, the flexible
programming capability is difficult to implement and always confined programming capability is difficult to implement and always confined
to reachability. As the introducing of central control in the to reachability. As the introducing of central control in the
network, the flexible MPLS programming capability becomes possible network, the flexible MPLS programming capability becomes possible
owing to two factors: 1. It becomes easier to allocate label for owing to two factors: 1. It becomes easier to allocate label for
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 skipping to change at page 12, line 10
as the one used in [RFC4760]. as the one used in [RFC4760].
Send/Receive: This field indicates whether the sender is (a) willing Send/Receive: This field indicates whether the sender is (a) willing
to receive programming MPLS paths from its peer (value 1), (b) would to receive programming MPLS paths from its peer (value 1), (b) would
like to send programming MPLS paths to its peer (value 2), or (c) like to send programming MPLS paths to its peer (value 2), or (c)
both (value 3) for the <AFI, SAFI>. both (value 3) for the <AFI, SAFI>.
9. Acknowledgments 9. Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would like to thank Lucy Yong, Susan The authors of this document would like to thank Lucy Yong, Susan
Hares, Eric Wu, Weiguo Hao, Pinan Li and Jie Dong for their reviews Hares, Eric Wu, Weiguo Hao, Pingan Li, Zhengqiang Li and Jie Dong for
and comments of this document. their reviews and comments of this document.
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
TBD. TBD.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC4271] and [RFC5575] are The security considerations of [RFC4271] and [RFC5575] are
applicable. applicable.
skipping to change at page 12, line 38 skipping to change at page 12, line 38
to Tunnel Action", draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect- to Tunnel Action", draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-
tunnel-01 (work in progress), March 2016. tunnel-01 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision] [I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision]
Retana, A. and R. White, "BGP Custom Decision Process", Retana, A. and R. White, "BGP Custom Decision Process",
draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-07 (work in progress), draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-07 (work in progress),
November 2015. November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] [I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-01 Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-02
(work in progress), December 2015. (work in progress), May 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001, Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 20 skipping to change at page 13, line 20
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
"LDP Specification", RFC 5036, DOI 10.17487/RFC5036,
October 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>. 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009, Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05 (work in Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in
progress), October 2015. progress), July 2016.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in [RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001, BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012, RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
15 lines changed or deleted 11 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/