MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Source Label
draft-chen-mpls-source-label-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Mach Chen  , Xiaohu Xu  , Zhenbin Li  , Luyuan Fang  , Greg Mirsky 
Last updated 2014-04-15
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                            M. Chen
Internet-Draft                                                     X. Xu
Intended status: Standards Track                                   Z. Li
Expires: October 17, 2014                                         Huawei
                                                                 L. Fang
                                                               Microsoft
                                                               G. Mirsky
                                                                Ericsson
                                                          April 15, 2014

           MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) Source Label
                    draft-chen-mpls-source-label-03

Abstract

   A MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) label was originally defined
   to identify a Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC), a packet is
   assigned to a specific FEC based on its network layer destination
   address.  It's difficult or even impossible to derive the source
   identity information from the label.  For some applications, source
   identification is a critical requirement.  For example, performance
   monitoring, where the monitoring node needs to identify where a
   packet was sent from.

   This document introduces the concept of Source Label (SL) that is
   carried in the label stack and used to identify the ingress Label
   Switching Router (LSR) of an Label Switched Path (LSP).

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 http://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

Chen, et al.            Expires October 17, 2014                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                Source Label                    April 2014

   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 October 17, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Problem Statement and Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Source Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Performance Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Data Plane Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  Ingress LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Transit LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.3.  Egress LSR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     5.4.  Penultimate Hop LSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Source Label Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     6.1.  Source Label Capability Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.1.  LDP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       6.1.2.  BGP Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       6.1.3.  RSVP-TE Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.2.  Source Label Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Source Label Indication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  LDP Source Label Capability TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.3.  BGP Source Label Capability Attribute . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.4.  RSVP-TE Source Label Capability Flag  . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
Show full document text