MPLS Working Group R. Gandhi, Ed.
Internet-Draft Z. Ali
Intended status: Standards Track C. Filsfils
Expires: July 13, 2021 F. Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
B. Wen
V. Kozak
Comcast
January 09, 2021
MPLS Data Plane Encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-05
Abstract
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information in the data packet while the
packet traverses a path between two nodes in the network. This
document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS data
plane encapsulation using new Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh),
including Segment Routing (SR) with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).
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 July 13, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IOAM Data Field Encapsulation in MPLS Header . . . . . . . . 3
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Indicator Label . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Indicator Label Allocation . . . . . . 6
5. Hop-by-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Hop-by-Hop IOAM Indicator Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Procedure for Hop-by-Hop IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. Hop-by-Hop IOAM Indicator Label Allocation . . . . . . . 8
6. Considerations for IOAM Indicator Label . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. Considerations for ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Node Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.3. MSD Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.4. Nested MPLS Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. SR-MPLS Header with IOAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (IOAM) records
operational and telemetry information within the packet while the
packet traverses a particular network domain. The term "in-situ"
refers to the fact that the IOAM data fields are added to the data
packets rather than being sent within the probe packets specifically
dedicated to OAM or Performance Measurement (PM). The IOAM data
fields are defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data], and can be used for
various use-cases for OAM and PM. The IOAM data fields are further
updated in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export] for direct export use-
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
cases and in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags] for Loopback and Active
flags.
This document defines how IOAM data fields are transported with MPLS
data plane encapsulations using new Generic Associated Channel
(G-ACh), including Segment Routing (SR) with MPLS data plane (SR-
MPLS).
2. Conventions
2.1. Requirement 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in this document:
ECMP Equal Cost Multi-Path
G-ACh Generic Associated Channel
IOAM In-situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
MPLS Multiprotocol Label Switching
OAM Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
PM Performance Measurement
POT Proof-of-Transit
PSID Path Segment Identifier
SR Segment Routing
SR-MPLS Segment Routing with MPLS Data plane
3. IOAM Data Field Encapsulation in MPLS Header
The IOAM data fields defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] are used.
IOAM data fields are carried in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 1.
More than one trace options can be present in the IOAM data fields.
G-ACh [RFC5586] provides a mechanism to transport OAM and other
control messages over MPLS data plane. The IOAM G-ACh header
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
[RFC5586] with new IOAM G-ACh type is added immediately after the the
MPLS label stack in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 1, before the
IOAM data field(s).
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
|0 0 0 1|Version| Reserved | IOAM G-ACh | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Reserved | Block Number | IOAM-OPT-Type |IOAM HDR Length| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
| | O
| | A
~ IOAM Option and Data Space ~ M
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+<-+
| |
| |
| Payload + Padding |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IOAM Encapsulation in MPLS Header
The fields related to the encapsulation of IOAM data fields in the
MPLS header are defined as follows:
IP Version Number 0001b: The first four octets are IP Version Field
part of a G-ACh header [RFC5586].
Version: The Version field is set to 0, as defined in [RFC4385].
IOAM G-ACh: Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Type (value TBA3) for
IOAM [RFC5586].
Reserved: Reserved Bits MUST be set to zero upon transmission and
ignored upon receipt.
Block Number: The Block Number can be used to aggregate the IOAM
data collected in data plane, e.g. compute measurement metrics for
each block of a flow. It is also used to correlate the IOAM data
on different nodes.
IOAM-OPT-Type: 8-bit field defining the IOAM Option type, as defined
in Section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
IOAM HDR LEN: 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the IOAM HDR in
4-octet units.
IOAM Option and Data Space: IOAM option header and data is present
as defined by the IOAM-OPT-Type field, and is defined in Section 5
of [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
4. Edge-to-Edge IOAM
4.1. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Indicator Label
The E2E IOAM Indicator Label is used to indicate the presence of the
E2E IOAM data field in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 2. If only
edge nodes need to process IOAM data then E2E IOAM Indicator Label is
used so that transit nodes can ignore it.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| E2E IOAM Indicator Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: E2E IOAM Encapsulation in MPLS Header
4.2. Procedure for Edge-to-Edge IOAM
The Edge-to-Edge (E2E) IOAM includes IOAM Option-Type as Edge-to-Edge
Option-Type [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. This section summarizes the
procedure for data encapsulation and decapsulation for Edge-to-Edge
IOAM in MPLS header.
o The encapsulating node inserts the E2E IOAM Indicator Label and
one or more IOAM data field(s) in the MPLS header.
o The decapsulating node "punts the timestamped copy" of the
received data packet as is including IOAM data fields when the
node recognizes the IOAM Indicator Label. It is punted with
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM processing. The
receive timestamp is required by various E2E OAM use-cases,
including streaming telemetry. Note that it is not necessarily
punted to the control-plane.
o The decapsulating node processes the IOAM data field(s) using the
procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An example of
IOAM processing is to export the data fields, send data fields via
streaming telemetry, etc.
o The decapsulating node also pops the IOAM Indicator Label and the
IOAM data fields from received packet. A copy of the decapsulated
data packet is forwarded downstream or terminated locally similar
to the regular data packets.
4.3. Edge-to-Edge IOAM Indicator Label Allocation
The E2E IOAM Indicator Label is used to indicate the presence of the
E2E IOAM data field in the MPLS header. The E2E IOAM Indicator Label
can be allocated using one of the following methods:
o Label assigned by IANA with value TBA1 from the Extended Special-
Purpose MPLS Values [I-D.ietf-mpls-spl-terminology].
o Label allocated by a Controller from the global table of the
decapsulating node. The Controller provisions the label on both
encapsulating and decapsulating nodes.
o Label allocated by the decapsulating node and signalled or
advertised in the network. The signaling and/or advertisement
extension for this is outside the scope of this document.
5. Hop-by-Hop IOAM
5.1. Hop-by-Hop IOAM Indicator Label
The HbH IOAM Indicator Label is used to indicate the presence of the
HbH IOAM data field in the MPLS header as shown in Figure 3.
Different IOAM Indicator Labels are used for E2E and HbH IOAM to
optimize processing on transit nodes and for checking if IOAM data
fields need to be processed on transit nodes. If only edge nodes
need to process IOAM data then E2E IOAM Indicator Label is used so
that transit nodes can ignore it. If both edge and transit nodes
need to process IOAM data then HbH IOAM Indicator Label is used.
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| HbH IOAM Indicator Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 3: HbH IOAM Encapsulation in MPLS Header
5.2. Procedure for Hop-by-Hop IOAM
The Hop-by-Hop (HbH) IOAM includes IOAM Option-Types IOAM Pre-
allocated Trace Option-Type, IOAM Incremental Trace Option-Type and
IOAM Proof of Transit (POT) Option-Type [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
This section summarizes the procedure for data encapsulation and
decapsulation for Hop-by-hop IOAM in MPLS header.
o The encapsulating node inserts the HbH IOAM Indicator Label and
one or more IOAM data field(s) in the MPLS header.
o The intermediate node enabled with HbH IOAM functions processes
the data packet including IOAM data fields as defined in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] when the node recognizes the HbH IOAM
Indicator Label present in the MPLS header. The intermediate node
may 'punt the timestamped copy' of the received data packet
including the IOAM data fields as required by the IOAM data field
processing. It is punted with receive timestamp to the slow path
for IOAM processing.
o The intermediate node forwards a copy of the processsed data
packet downstream.
o The decapsulating node "punts the timestamped copy" of the
received data packet as is including IOAM data fields when the
node recognizes the IOAM Indicator Label. It is punted with
receive timestamp to the slow path for IOAM processing. The
receive timestamp is required by various E2E OAM use-cases,
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
including streaming telemetry. Note that it is not necessarily
punted to the control-plane.
o The decapsulating node processes the IOAM data field(s) using the
procedures defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]. An example of
IOAM processing is to export the data fields, send data fields via
streaming telemetry, etc.
o The decapsulating node also pops the IOAM Indicator Label and the
IOAM data fields from received packet. A copy of the decapsulated
data packet is forwarded downstream or terminated locally similar
to the regular data packets.
5.3. Hop-by-Hop IOAM Indicator Label Allocation
The HbH IOAM Indicator Label is used to indicate the presence of the
HbH IOAM data field in the MPLS header. The HbH IOAM Indicator Label
can be allocated using one of the following methods:
o Label assigned by IANA with value TBA2 from the Extended Special-
Purpose MPLS Values [I-D.ietf-mpls-spl-terminology].
o Label allocated by a Controller from the network-wide global
table. The Controller provisions the labels on all nodes
participating in IOAM functions along the data traffic path.
6. Considerations for IOAM Indicator Label
6.1. Considerations for ECMP
The encapsulating node needs to make sure the IOAM data field does
not start with a well known IP Version Number (e.g. 0x4 for IPv4 and
0x6 for IPv6) as it can alter the hashing function for ECMP that uses
the IP header. This is achieved by using the IOAM G-ACh with IP
Version Number 0001b after the MPLS label stack [RFC5586].
Note that the hashing function for ECMP that uses the labels from the
MPLS header may now include the IOAM Indicator Label.
When entropy label [RFC6790] is used for hashing function for ECMP,
the procedure defined in this document does not alter the hashing
function.
6.2. Node Capability
The decapsulating node that has to pop the IOAM Indicator Label, data
fields, and perform the IOAM function may not be capable of
supporting it. The encapsulating node needs to know if the
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
decapsulating node can support the IOAM function. The signaling
extension for this capability exchange is outside the scope of this
document.
The intermediate node that is not capable of supporting the IOAM
functions defined in this document, can simply skip the IOAM
processing of the MPLS header.
6.3. MSD Considerations
The SR path computation needs to know the Maximum SID Depth (MSD)
that can be imposed at each node/link of a given SR path [RFC8664].
This ensures that the SID stack depth of a computed path does not
exceed the number of SIDs the node is capable of imposing. The MSD
used for path computation MUST include the IOAM Indicator Label.
6.4. Nested MPLS Encapsulation
The data packets with IOAM data fields carry only one IOAM Indicator
Label in the MPLS header. Any intermediate node that adds additional
MPLS encapsulation in the MPLS header may further update the IOAM
data fields in the header without inserting another IOAM Indicator
Label.
7. SR-MPLS Header with IOAM
Segment Routing (SR) technology leverages the source routing paradigm
[RFC8660]. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of
instructions, called segments, by pre-pending the packet with an SR
header. In the SR with MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS), the SR header is
instantiated through a label stack.
An example of data packet carrying the SR-MPLS header with Path
Segment Identifier (PSID) [I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment] and E2E
IOAM encapsulation is shown in Figure 4. The Path Segment Identifier
allows to identify the path associated with the data traffic being
monitored for IOAM on the decapsulating node.
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label(n) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PSID | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| E2E IOAM Indicator Label | TC |1| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet as shown in Figure 1 |
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 4: Example SR-MPLS Header with E2E IOAM
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of SR-MPLS are discussed in [RFC8660],
and the security considerations of IOAM in general are discussed in
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].
IOAM is considered a "per domain" feature, where one or several
operators decide on leveraging and configuring IOAM according to
their needs. Still, operators need to properly secure the IOAM
domain to avoid malicious configuration and use, which could include
injecting malicious IOAM packets into a domain.
Routers that support G-ACh are subject to the same security
considerations as defined in [RFC4385] and [RFC5586].
9. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Special-Purpose Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Values" registry (see <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-label-values/mpls-label-values.xml>). IANA is requested to
allocate IOAM Indicator Label value from the "Extended Special-
Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry:
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
+--------+--------------------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+--------+--------------------------+---------------+
| TBA1 | E2E IOAM Indicator Label | This document |
+--------+--------------------------+---------------+
| TBA2 | HbH IOAM Indicator Label | This document |
+--------+--------------------------+---------------+
IANA maintains G-ACh Type Registry (see
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/g-ach-parameters/g-ach-
parameters.xhtml>). IANA is requested to allocate a value for IOAM
G-ACh Type from "MPLS Generalized Associated Channel (G-ACh) Types
(including Pseudowire Associated Channel Types)" registry.
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
| TBA3 | IOAM G-ACh Type | This document |
+-------+-----------------+---------------+
Table 1: IOAM G-ACh Type
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T. Mizrahi, "Data Fields
for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-data-11 (work in
progress), November 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-export]
Song, H., Gafni, B., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Brockners, F.,
Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R., and T. Mizrahi, "In-situ
OAM Direct Exporting", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-direct-
export-02 (work in progress), November 2020.
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-flags]
Mizrahi, T., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Sivakolundu, R.,
Pignataro, C., Kfir, A., Gafni, B., Spiegel, M., and J.
Lemon, "In-situ OAM Flags", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-flags-03
(work in progress), October 2020.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-spl-terminology]
Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special
Purpose Label terminology", draft-ietf-mpls-spl-
terminology-05 (work in progress), November 2020.
[I-D.ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment]
Cheng, W., Li, H., Chen, M., Gandhi, R., and R. Zigler,
"Path Segment in MPLS Based Segment Routing Network",
draft-ietf-spring-mpls-path-segment-03 (work in progress),
September 2020.
[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>.
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Patrick Khordoc, Shwetha Bhandari and
Vengada Prasad Govindan for the discussions on IOAM. The authors
would also like to thank Tarek Saad, Loa Andersson, Greg Mirsky,
Stewart Bryant, and Cheng Li for providing many useful comments. The
authors would also like to thank Mach Chen, Andrew Malis, Matthew
Bocci, and Nick Delregno for the MPLS-RT reviews.
Contributors
Sagar Soni
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: sagsoni@cisco.com
Authors' Addresses
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: zali@cisco.com
Clarence Filsfils
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Belgium
Email: cf@cisco.com
Frank Brockners
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Hansaallee 249, 3rd Floor
DUESSELDORF, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN 40549
Germany
Email: fbrockne@cisco.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft In-situ OAM for MPLS Data plane January 2021
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com
Voitek Kozak
Comcast
Email: Voitek_Kozak@comcast.com
Gandhi, et al. Expires July 13, 2021 [Page 14]
