A Primer on the Development of MPLS
draft-bryant-mpls-dev-primer-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Stewart Bryant | ||
| Last updated | 2022-05-09 | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-bryant-mpls-dev-primer-02
MPLS S. Bryant
Internet-Draft University of Surrey
Intended status: Informational May 09, 2022
Expires: November 10, 2022
A Primer on the Development of MPLS
draft-bryant-mpls-dev-primer-02
Abstract
There has been significant recent interest in developing MPLS to
address new needs. This memo collects together various documents
that together describe the key aspects of the MPLS architecture
together with the development proposals that the author is aware of.
The purpose of this document is to bring everyone up to speed on the
rational for the existing design and to alert them to the new
proposals.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Background Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (RFC 3031) . . 3
2.2. MPLS Label Stack Encoding (RFC 3032) . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN (RFC5586) . . . . . 4
2.4. Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Treatment in MPLS
Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Synonymous Flow Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6. Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks . . . . . . . 5
3. Other Observations Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. New Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. MPLS Extension Header Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. MPLS Label Operations in MPLS EH capable networks . . . . 8
4.3. Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with
Alternate Marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data . . . 9
4.5. Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding
Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. No Further Fast Reroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.7. Carrying Virtual Transport Network Identifier in MPLS
Packet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.8. Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking . . . . . . . . 10
4.9. Options for MPLS Extension Header Indicator . . . . . . . 10
4.10. MPLS Extension Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.11. MPLS Payload Protocol Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.12. Generic Transport Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.13. Use of an MPLS LSE as an Ancillary Data Pointer . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
There has been significant recent interest in developing the MPLS
data plane to address new needs. This memo collects together various
documents that together describe the key aspects of the MPLS
architecture together with the development proposals that the author
is aware of.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
The intent of this work is to bring everyone up to speed on the
rational for the existing design and to alert them to the new
proposals. If I have missed any proposals, then please accept my
apologies for the oversight, let me know and I will include it in the
list.
I do not anticipate that this memo will progress to become an RFC.
The interest in this work to develop MPLS was noted by the Chairs of
the DETNET, MPLS, PALS, and SPRING IETF working groups who called a
joint meeting at IETF 110. The agenda, slides notes etc of the
meeting are currently at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/
Editor's note the above URL will change when the meeting is included
in the IETF Proceedings.
A video recording of the meeting is to be found at https://youtu.be/
rt_vQTToO1s
2. Background Documents
2.1. Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (RFC 3031)
[RFC3031] describes the base architecture of MPLS. This is updated
by:
o [RFC6178] which describes label edge router forwarding of IPv4
option packets and is not relevant to this discussion.
o [RFC6790] which describes the use of entropy labels in MPLS
forwarding. The entropy label is a two stack entry tuple that
consists of a special purpose label (SPL) followed by a label
stack entry (LSE) who's label is pure entropy to be applied to the
selection of a path from the Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) set.
Its use in choosing the ECMP member is optional. This was the
first formal introduction of the concept of an MPLS forwarder
needing to parse below the top of the label stack.
Prior to the introduction of RFC 6790 it was already common practice
for LSRs to scan the label stack to the bottom of stack (a simple
task requiring the checking of a single bit in each LSE) to
heuristically check that the packet was IP and if so to hash the five
tuple to determine the ECMP path to use.
This approach worked well until Ethernet addresses were
(legitimately) deployed that confused these forwarders into thinking
that Ethernet packets were IP packets ((RFC8469}}.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
2.2. MPLS Label Stack Encoding (RFC 3032)
[RFC3032] Specifies the encoding of an MPLS LSE. This has been
updated by:
o [RFC3443] describes the two models of TTL handling in MPLS. In
addition that it should be noted that some LSR decrement the TTL
of the TOP label _before_ inspecting the label in the top LSE.
o [RFC3270] describes the application of diffserv to MPLS and the
pipe vs uniform models. It may apply to this work if we are
popping xSPLs.
EDITOR'S NOTE need to think about [RFC3270] some more.
o [RFC5129] describes Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS. It is
not clear how widely this is deployed. This is something that
needs to be thought through when re-purposing the TC bits as has
been proposed in some of the drafts listed below.
o [RFC5462] renames the EXP field to TC field. This is a naming
convention and not a technology change.
o [RFC5586] defines the Generic Associated Channel (see later).
o [RFC7274] defines the process for allocating and retiring special
purpose labels (SPLs) (formerly known as Reserved Labels). It
also creates the extended special purpose labels (eSPLs). eSPLs
are another instance of a twin label in the stack, with the first
label (15) from the SPL range followed by another label that
specifies the function of the twin labels.
2.3. Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN (RFC5586)
[RFC5586] describes the first use of a type of meta-data between the
bottom of the MPLS label stack and the packet payload. The
pseudowire (PW) control word (CW) is used to carry additional
information that the egress Provider Edge (PE) LSR needs to construct
the outgoing packet. It also tells the forwarder that the packet is
not an IP packet and so should not be subjected to ECMP.
[RFC8469] is an update to the Ethernet PW specification [RFC4448] to
strongly encourage the use of the CW for Ethernet PWs. All other PWs
that have been defined require the use of the CW.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
2.4. Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) Treatment in MPLS Network
[RFC4928] describes the issue of accidental ECMP of packets not carry
IP. This arises because some forwarders accidentally mistake a non-
IP packet for an IP packet. They use a heuristic method of
determining that the packet is IP. They sometimes get this wrong
causing a misordered the delivery of some of the packets. [RFC4928]
formally introduces the concept of using the first nibble of 0b0000
to avoid this. Note that the technique is actually older than this
having been introduced in [RFC4385].
2.5. Synonymous Flow Labels
[RFC8957] describes a technique whereby additional labels are
introduced to an MPLS network that mimic the behavior of other MPLS
labels but also introduce new properties to the FEC. The main use is
to trigger OAM actions, but the method can be used to trigger other
agreed actions.
2.6. Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks
[RFC8169] describes a method of measuring the dwell or residence time
of a packet in a router. The time is accumulated in a G-ACh packet
carried below the label stack. Note that the G-ACh uses first nibble
= 0b0001. This is the first instance of a G-ACh packet being
specified for operation on a user data packet.
The data packet is carried over an RSVP-TE path and thus the top of
stack label indicates to the forwarder both the next-hop and outgoing
label, but also indicates the presence of the G-ACh and the need to
perform the residence time accumulation.
The RFC predates segment routing (SR) and does not mention Software
Defined Networks (SDNS), but the method could be used in those
environments.
3. Other Observations Received
The following comments were received and are included for the benefit
of the reader.
Some of these comments should probably me moved to a requirements
draft.
For better of worse, passive taps and splitters are universally
deployed for various monitoring purposes, the resulting feed is a
direct copy of the traffic on the wire; active monitoring within the
network element is equally widely deployed. Neither of these
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
mechanisms have insight into the FEC context. This would imply that
the encapsulation is deterministic - i.e. it needs to be possible for
the packet to be unambiguously decoded by such a side observer.
Filters for monitored traffic also need to be created somehow, this
implies that an LSE and the new header wire format needs to be
unambiguous in the context that does not have access to endpoints.
The amount of state that needs to be distributed across the domain,
the rate of such state change and state accumulation points needs to
be understood. If information needs to be signaled end to end, what
is the impact on the transit nodes and what is the impact of the
total state that is kept within a domain. An example is MSD
propagation - while it is on the order of a rounding error for an IGP
to propagate, a generic realization would require maintaining all of
that state for whole domain in every node, and realistically that
will be on the order of a few tens of MSD entries per page. While
not a problem for platforms with wide address space, 32 bit address
space systems are widely deployed and will stay in a foreseeable
future - this increase of state is not free in their context.
From the practical implementation point of view, there appear to be
three large groups
o hardware implementations
o scalar software
o vector software implementations
Vector implementations are the fastest growing ones, both by the
addressable market and by the performance benefits. However, those
benefits can easily be written off if data formats are in direct
opposition to vector processing rules. vertical processing within a
lane is what vector implementations assume, with reasonably good
support for horizontal operations within lanes/ However support for
anything that does not align uniformly to all lanes is quite poor.
Variable length headers with fields being spread across various lane
positions are a bad match for this technology. If it is within a
cache line the penalty is still reasonable but quickly approaches the
point where the benefits of vector processing are over-shadowed by
the additional processing required to get data in the right order.
While MPLS-TP and MPLS have the same data plane encapsulation, they
do not necessarily make practical use of the same data plane instance
- it is a basic network design aspect to separate different classes
of traffic in different layers.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
There are many design issues to look at, but before we go too far
with the new proposals we need to understand the practical uses of
the technology and the practical limitations of the methods of
implementation.
EDITOR'S NOTE add in illustration label stacks for major
encapsulations - single and multiple label IPv4/IPv6, and packet
pseudowires - the encapsulations that make the dominant part of
traffic. Something similar to what extended headers document has for
showing wire image, but for current encapsulation - to have an
illustratory view of which node needs to lookup what and how deep.
4. New Proposals
This section catalogues new proposals for how metadata is carried and
how its presence is indicated to the forwarder.
4.1. MPLS Extension Header Architecture
[I-D.andersson-mpls-eh-architecture] specifies an architecture for
the extension of MPLS to include Extension Headers (EH). The
proposal is for the EHs to carry information on in-network services
and functions in an MPLS network. The extension headers are carried
after the MPLS Label Stack, and the presence of EHs are indicated in
the label stack by an Extension Header Indicator (EHI).
Proposed use cases are:
o In-situ OAM
o Network Telemetry and Measurement
o Network Security
o Segment Routing
o Network Programming
The draft calls two types of EH:
o "hop-by-hop" (HBH)
o "End to end" (E2E).
The draft proposes to indicate the presence of the EH via the FEC.
The ability of a router on the LSP to process a packet correctly is
advertised in the routing protocol.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
4.2. MPLS Label Operations in MPLS EH capable networks
[I-D.andersson-mpls-eh-label-stack-operations] provides the operating
procedures for EH-capable and non-EH-capable LSRs where MPLS
Extension Headers (EH) are carried below the MPLS label stack.
Further this describes how MPLS EHs can be gradually introduced into
an existing MPLS network. The capability to handle EHs is announced
throughout the MPLS network, and LSRs that don't understand this
information simply ignore it.
The extension headers are carried after the MPLS Label Stack, and the
presence of EHs are indicate in the label stack by a Extended Special
Purpose label called Extension Header Indicator (EHI) in the label
stack.
The EH(s) are carried over a G-ACh. Three ACHs are suggested E2E,
HBH, Both. A number of EHs can be accommodated with the number being
indicated by a parameter in the ACH.
The draft considers the stack structure in a number of cases such as
VPN (and presumably PW) and non-VPN (native IP payload) cases.
The draft shows how RSVP-TE signaling would work.
4.3. Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate
Marking
[I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation] shows how a flow ID can be
carried in a packet. The application is Alternate Marking (AM) for
performance monitoring of the network.
It proposes the use of an eSPL (two LSEs) preceding a third LSE which
the flow ID in its label field.
This LSE triplet can occur more than once in the label stack and can
occur at any position within the label stack. If it is used for two
different purposes in the stack the Flow ID must be different.
Where Alternate Marking is used two method of creating the
alternating pairs are proposed, using two Flow IDs which will have
ECMP implications possibly requiring the including of an entropy
label pair, or using the TC bits which may effect queue priority on
the egress LSR when the Flow ID is bottom of stack.
Considerations of maximum stack depth apply.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
4.4. MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr] shows how the IOAM data fields defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] could be carried in MPLS. It carries the
OAM data in an G-Ach and specifies both hop-by-hop and end-to-end
versions.
The OAM present/type indicator is an e(SPL) at the bottom of the MPLS
label stack requiring a P-router to scan the stack to find the label.
The draft proposes the stacking of G-Ach blocks at the bottom of
stack with the IOAM G-Ach first and any subsequent G-Ach located
through the use of a length field in the IOAM G-Ach.
4.5. Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding Actions
[I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa] notes that the forwarder does not need to
use the TC, or TTL fields in an LSE that does not become top of
stack. It proposes to exploit these fields as indicators of
forwarding actions, by modifying the semantics of these fields.
There are a number of key proposals in the draft:
o Using the "spare bits" as forwarding indicator flags to specify
actions or in some cases inactions
o Using the method to multi-purpose SPLs and thus expand the number
of single label SPLs available to the IETF.
o Reusing the Entropy Label fields to carry additional data needed
by the forwarder. This latter point could be adopted by any eSPL.
One use for this additional data that was proposed (certainly in
discussion but I cannot see it in the draft) was the use of this
facility to carry a network slice identifier.
4.6. No Further Fast Reroute
[I-D.kompella-mpls-nffrr] proposes the use of an SPL (note not an
eSPL) to indicate that a fast re-route action is not to be undertaken
on the packet.
Uses an SPL for this single purpose
4.7. Carrying Virtual Transport Network Identifier in MPLS Packet
[I-D.li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id] is a method of carrying a virtual
network identifier in an MPLS packet. It does this by carrying meta-
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
data below the MPLS label stack. It does not use the G-ACh but
instead a new design with a first nibble value of 0b0011.
Note that when we define new first nibbles we are technically taking
IP versions away from the IETF Internet Area. When PWE3 first
proposed this we agreed with the IETF of the day that we would only
take 0b0000 and 0b0001. I am looking to see if this agreement was
documented.
The presence of the VTN is indicted by an SPL (note not an eSPL)
somewhere in the label stack. The draft discusses how multiple VTNs
can be placed in the packet, but not how multiple types of meta-data
are to be carried.
4.8. Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking
[I-D.stein-srtsn] describes how information can be encoded in the
MPLS label stack to inform the forwarder when a time sensitive packet
should be sent. Each LSE becomes 64 bits, the first 32 bits a
conventional MPLS label and the second part contains dispatch time
information.
Note that as far as I can see there is no provision for an S bit
making label stack scanning for other information liable to make a
mistake.
There is no information that I can see stating how the LSR knows that
the LSE is in this format and so I assume that it knows from the FEC.
4.9. Options for MPLS Extension Header Indicator
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header] provides a catalogue of methods of
identifying the presence of presence of an extension header after the
label stack. The methods could of course be used for identifying the
presence of some other structure after the label stack.
The methods listed are:
o A special purpose label
o An extended special purpose label pair
o A GAL and an associated channel header
o A GAL followed by a structure with a different first nibble value
o The use of a new FEC
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
4.10. MPLS Extension Header
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header] describes a design for an MPLS
extension header to be placed after the MPLS label stack. The Header
of Extension Headers (HEH) specifies the number of extension headers
that follow. The HEH has the four bit ECMP defeat nibble, a count of
number of extension headers, the length of the set of extension
headers and the type of the following extension header. An Extension
Header (EH) starts with the type of the header that follows this EH,
the length of this EH followed by the EH data/payload.
Two generic types of EH as specified, End to End and Hop by Hop.
4.11. MPLS Payload Protocol Identifier
[I-D.xu-mpls-payload-protocol-identifier] describes a method of
adding a protocol identifier (PID) to an MPLS packet.
A 16 bit PID is carried in a 32 bit structure following the label
stack. The structure just has an ECMP defeat nibble 0b000 and the
PID.
Presence of the PID is indicated by an SPL or an eSPL at the bottom
of stack.
An alternative method of indicating the PIL is also proposed by using
a first nibble of 0b1111. Note that this might be defeated by an
MPLS payload other than IP. For reasons discussed in [RFC8469] in
this arrangement the PIL could not be used at a mid-point, but would
be safe at an endpoint. The first nibble comments in {#VTN} also
apply to this proposal.
No provision is made for carrying other data beyond the bottom of
stack, and there is no discussion on how this works with VPNs and
PWs.
4.12. Generic Transport Functions
[I-D.zzhang-tsvwg-generic-transport-functions] describes a method of
adding fragmentation to a number of protocols including MPLS. The
fragmentation header follows the end of stack. It does not take any
ECMP precautions through the first nibble. Some mitigation could be
achieved by the use of the ELI/EL where the P routers can support
this.
Indication of the fragmentation header is indicated by the FEC.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
Note that the draft referenced pseudowires (PWs) and that PWs have a
fragmentation method [RFC4623]. However this feature is not thought
to be widely implemented.
4.13. Use of an MPLS LSE as an Ancillary Data Pointer
[I-D.bryant-mpls-aux-data-pointer] described how Label Stack Entries
(LSEs) can be used to point to ancillary data carried below the MPLS
label stack. This allows the stack to explicitly direct the
forwarder to specific items of ancillary (meta) data, thereby
reducing the ambiguity of the various implicit systems proposed.
Thus, as an example it is possible to specify a latency requirement
on a path segment rather than requiring the forwarder to determine
which of several latency specifations are applicable to it.
A difficulty with the pointer approach occurs if the packet is ever
expanded, for example as a result of the use of an iOAM incremental
trace approach [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] adapted for MPLS. It is not
clear how widely deployed such an approach will be. A mitigation
approach is expected to be proposed in he next version of
[I-D.bryant-mpls-aux-data-pointer].
5. Security Considerations
Any changes to the MPLS security model as a result of a change will
need to be considered within the proposals themselves. This document
is a catalog of existing RFCs and design proposals and does not
itself modify the security of MPLS networks.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA requests.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.andersson-mpls-eh-architecture]
Andersson, L., Guichard, J. N., Song, H., and S. Bryant,
"MPLS Extension Header Architecture", draft-andersson-
mpls-eh-architecture-03 (work in progress), April 2022.
[I-D.andersson-mpls-eh-label-stack-operations]
Andersson, L., Guichard, J. N., Song, H., and S. Bryant,
"MPLS Label Operations in MPLS EH capable networks",
draft-andersson-mpls-eh-label-stack-operations-03 (work in
progress), April 2022.
[I-D.bryant-mpls-aux-data-pointer]
Bryant, S., Clemm, A., and T. Eckert, "Use of an MPLS LSE
as an Ancillary Data Pointer", draft-bryant-mpls-aux-data-
pointer-00 (work in progress), May 2021.
[I-D.gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr]
Gandhi, R., Ali, Z., Filsfils, C., Brockners, F., Wen, B.,
and V. Kozak, "MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ
OAM Data", draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-06 (work in
progress), February 2021.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-17 (work in
progress), December 2021.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation]
Cheng, W., Min, X., Zhou, T., Dong, X., and Y. Peleg,
"Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with
Alternate Marking Method", draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-
encapsulation-02 (work in progress), October 2021.
[I-D.kompella-mpls-mspl4fa]
Kompella, K., Beeram, V. P., Saad, T., and I. Meilik,
"Multi-purpose Special Purpose Label for Forwarding
Actions", draft-kompella-mpls-mspl4fa-02 (work in
progress), February 2022.
[I-D.kompella-mpls-nffrr]
Kompella, K. and W. Lin, "No Further Fast Reroute", draft-
kompella-mpls-nffrr-02 (work in progress), July 2021.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
[I-D.li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-vtn-id]
Li, Z. and J. Dong, "Carrying Virtual Transport Network
Identifier in MPLS Packet", draft-li-mpls-enhanced-vpn-
vtn-id-02 (work in progress), March 2022.
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]
Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., Andersson, L., and Z. Zhang,
"MPLS Extension Header", draft-song-mpls-extension-
header-06 (work in progress), January 2022.
[I-D.stein-srtsn]
Stein, Y. (., "Segment Routed Time Sensitive Networking",
draft-stein-srtsn-01 (work in progress), August 2021.
[I-D.xu-mpls-payload-protocol-identifier]
Xu, X., Assarpour, H., Ma, S., and F. Clad, "MPLS Payload
Protocol Identifier", draft-xu-mpls-payload-protocol-
identifier-09 (work in progress), September 2021.
[I-D.zzhang-tsvwg-generic-transport-functions]
Zhang, Z., Bonica, R., and K. Kompella, "Generic Transport
Functions", draft-zzhang-tsvwg-generic-transport-
functions-00 (work in progress), November 2020.
[RFC3270] Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
Services", RFC 3270, DOI 10.17487/RFC3270, May 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3270>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC4448] Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", RFC 4448, DOI 10.17487/RFC4448, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4448>.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
[RFC4623] Malis, A. and M. Townsley, "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and Reassembly", RFC 4623,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4623, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4623>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC5129] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", RFC 5129, DOI 10.17487/RFC5129, January
2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5129>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC6178] Smith, D., Mullooly, J., Jaeger, W., and T. Scholl, "Label
Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets", RFC 6178,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6178, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6178>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC7274] Kompella, K., Andersson, L., and A. Farrel, "Allocating
and Retiring Special-Purpose MPLS Labels", RFC 7274,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7274, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7274>.
[RFC8169] Mirsky, G., Ruffini, S., Gray, E., Drake, J., Bryant, S.,
and A. Vainshtein, "Residence Time Measurement in MPLS
Networks", RFC 8169, DOI 10.17487/RFC8169, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8169>.
[RFC8469] Bryant, S., Malis, A., and I. Bagdonas, "Recommendation to
Use the Ethernet Control Word", RFC 8469,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8469, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8469>.
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS-Dev-Primer May 2022
[RFC8957] Bryant, S., Chen, M., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., and G.
Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", RFC 8957,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8957, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8957>.
Author's Address
Stewart Bryant
University of Surrey
Email: sb@stewartbryant.com
Bryant Expires November 10, 2022 [Page 16]