Skip to main content

Signaling Tunnel Encapsulation/Deencapsulation Capabilities
draft-raggarwa-ppvpn-tunnel-encap-sig-03

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual in sub area)
Expired & archived
Author Rahul Aggarwal
Last updated 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2004-02-11)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Expired (IESG: Dead)
Action Holders
(None)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Alex D. Zinin
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:

Abstract

This document proposes a mechanism for signaling a PE router's tunnel encapsulation capabilities. One example is its capability to encapsulate MPLS using dynamic GRE and/or IP. This is applicable when a MPLS packet is tunneled using dynamic GRE and/or IP encapsulation [MPLS-IP-GRE] between PE routers. For instance the MPLS packet may be a 2547 based MPLS VPN packet [2547bis], a layer 2 packet transported using MPLS [MARTINI], a MPLS tunneled IPv6 packet or a MPLS IPv6 VPN packet [BGP-VPN-IPv6]. Adding such a mechanism has several benefits. It helps in blackhole avoidance and eases transitioning from MPLS tunneling based Layer 3/Layer 2 VPNs to GRE/IP tunneling based Layer 3/Layer 2 VPNs (and vice versa). Such a mechanism is needed where a network may be using MPLS and GRE (or IP) for tunneling, simultaneously in different parts of the network. It can help in encapsulation selection when multiple tunneling technologies are supported.

Authors

Rahul Aggarwal

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)