MPLS Working Group Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft Cisco
Updates: 5036 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Vishwas Manral
Expires: December 8, 2012 Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
Rajiv Papneja
Huawei
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco
June 8, 2012
Updates to LDP for IPv6
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07
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 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 December 8, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
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.
Abstract
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) specification defines
procedures to exchange label bindings over either IPv4, IPv6 or both
networks. This document corrects and clarifies the LDP behavior when
IPv6 network is used (with or without IPv4). This document updates
RFC 5036.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Scope.....................................................4
1.1.1. Topology Scenarios...................................4
1.1.2. LDP TTL Security.....................................5
2. Specification Language.........................................5
3. LSP Mapping....................................................6
4. LDP Identifiers................................................6
5. Peer Discovery.................................................7
5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism.................................7
5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism..............................8
6. LDP Session Establishment and Maintenance......................8
6.1. Transport connection establishment........................9
6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies............................10
6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions.................................11
7. Label Distribution............................................11
8. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses........................12
9. LDP TTL Security..............................................13
10. IANA Considerations..........................................14
11. Security Considerations......................................14
12. Acknowledgments..............................................14
13. Additional Contributors......................................15
14. References...................................................16
14.1. Normative References....................................16
14.2. Informative References..................................16
Author's Addresses...............................................17
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
1. Introduction
The LDP [RFC5036] specification defines procedures and messages for
exchanging FEC-label bindings over either IPv4 or IPv6 or both (e.g.
dual-stack) networks.
However, RFC5036 specification has the following deficiencies in
regards to IPv6 usage:
1) LSP Mapping: No rule defined for mapping a particular packet to a
particular LSP that has an Address Prefix FEC element containing
IPv6 address of the egress router
2) LDP Identifier: No details specific to IPv6 usage
3) LDP Discovery: No details for using a particular IPv6 destination
(multicast) address or the source address (with or without IPv4
co-existence)
4) LDP Session establishment: No rule for handling both IPv4 and
IPv6 transport address optional objects in a Hello message, and
subsequently two IPv4 and IPv6 transport connections
5) LDP Label Distribution: No rule for advertising IPv4 or/and IPv6
FEC-label bindings over an LDP session, and denying the co-
existence of IPv4 and IPv6 FEC Elements in the same FEC TLV
6) Next Hop Address & LDP Identifier: No rule for accommodating the
usage of duplicate link-local IPv6 addresses
7) LDP TTL Security: No rule for built-in Generalized TTL Security
Mechanism (GTSM) in LDP
This document addresses the above deficiencies by specifying the
desired behavior/rules/details for using LDP in IPv6 enabled
networks. It also clarifies the scope (section 1.1).
Note that this document updates RFC5036.
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
1.1. Scope
1.1.1. Topology Scenarios
The following scenarios in which the LSRs may be inter-connected via
one or more dual-stack interfaces (figure 1), or two or more single-
stack interfaces (figure 2 and figure 3) are addressed by this
document:
R1------------------R2
IPv4+IPv6
Figure 1 LSRs connected via a Dual-stack Interface
IPv4
R1=================R2
IPv6
Figure 2 LSRs connected via two single-stack Interfaces
R1------------------R2---------------R3
IPv4 IPv6
Figure 3 LSRs connected via a single-stack Interface
Note that the topology scenario illustrated in figure 1 also covers
the case of a single-stack interface (IPv4, say) being converted to
a dual-stacked interface by enabling IPv6 as well as IPv6 LDP, even
though the IPv4 LDP session may already be established between the
LSRs.
Note that the topology scenario illustrated in figure 2 also covers
the case of two routers getting connected via an additional single-
stack interface (IPv6, say), even though the IPv4 LDP session may
already be established between the LSRs over the existing interface.
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
1.1.2. LDP TTL Security
LDP TTL Security mechanism specified by this document applies only
to single-hop LDP peering sessions, but not to multi-hop LDP peering
sessions, in line with Section 5.5 of [RFC5082] that describes
Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM).
As a consequence, any LDP feature that relies on multi-hop LDP
peering session would not work with GTSM and will warrant
(statically or dynamically) disabling GTSM. Please see section 8.
2. Specification 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].
Abbreviations:
LDP - Label Distribution Protocol
LDPv4 - LDP for enabling IPv4 MPLS forwarding
LDPv6 - LDP for enabling IPv6 MPLS forwarding
LDPoIPv4 - LDP over IPv4 transport session
LDPoIPv6 - LDP over IPv6 transport session
FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class
TLV - Type Length Value
LSR - Label Switch Router
LSP - Label Switched Path
LSPv4 - IPv4-signaled Label Switched Path [RFC4798]
LSPv6 - IPv6-signaled Label Switched Path [RFC4798]
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
3. LSP Mapping
Section 2.1 of [RFC5036] specifies the procedure for mapping a
particular packet to a particular LSP using three rules. Quoting the
3rd rule from RFC5036:
"If it is known that a packet must traverse a particular egress
router, and there is an LSP that has an Address Prefix FEC element
that is a /32 address of that router, then the packet is mapped to
that LSP."
Suffice to say, this rule is correct for IPv4, but not for IPv6,
since an IPv6 router may not have any /32 address.
This document proposes to modify this rule by also including a /128
address (for IPv6). In fact, it should be reasonable to just say
IPv4 or IPv6 address instead of /32 or /128 addresses as shown below
in the updated rule:
"If it is known that a packet must traverse a particular egress
router, and there is an LSP that has an Address Prefix FEC element
that is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of that router, then the packet is
mapped to that LSP."
Additionally, it is desirable that a packet is forwarded to an LSP
of an egress router, only if LSP's address-family (e.g. LSPv4 or
LSPv6) matches with that of the LDP hello adjacency on the next-hop
interface.
4. LDP Identifiers
Section 2.2.2 of [RFC5036] specifies formulating at least one LDP
Identifier, however, it doesn't provide any consideration in case of
IPv6 (with or without dual-stacking). Additionally, section 2.5.2 of
[RFC5036] implicitly prohibits using the same label space for both
IPv4 and IPv6 FEC-label bindings.
The first four octets of the LDP identifier, the 32-bit LSR Id (e.g.
(i.e. LDP Router Id), identify the LSR and is a globally unique
value within the MPLS network. This is regardless of the address
family used for the LDP session. Hence, this document preserves the
usage of 32-bit (unsigned non-zero integer) LSR Id on an IPv6 only
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
LSR (note that BGP has also mandated using 32-bit BGP Router ID on
an IPv6 only Router [RFC6286]).
Please note that 32-bit LSR Id value would not map to any IPv4-
address in an IPv6 only LSR (i.e., single stack), nor would there
be an expectation of it being DNS-resolvable. In IPv4 deployments,
the LSR Id is typically derived from an IPv4 address, generally
assigned to a loopback interface. In IPv6 only deployments, this
32-bit LSR Id must be derived by some other means that guarantees
global uniqueness within the MPLS network, similar to that of BGP
Identifier [RFC6286].
This document qualifies the first sentence of last paragraph of
Section 2.5.2 of [RFC5036] to be per address family and therefore
updates that sentence to the following: "For a given address family
over which a Hello is sent, and a given label space, an LSR MUST
advertise the same transport address." This rightly enables the per-
platform label space to be shared between IPv4 and IPv6.
In summary, this document not only allows the usage of a common LDP
identifier i.e. same LSR-Id (aka LDP Router-Id), but also the common
Label space id for both IPv4 and IPv6 on a dual-stack LSR.
This document reserves 0.0.0.0 as the LSR-Id, and prohibits its
usage.
5. Peer Discovery
5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism
Section 2.4.1 of [RFC5036] defines the Basic Discovery mechanism for
directly connected LSRs. Following this mechanism, LSRs periodically
sends LDP Link Hellos destined to "all routers on this subnet" group
multicast IP address.
Interesting enough, per the IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC4291],
IPv6 has three "all routers on this subnet" multicast addresses:
FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Interface-local scope
FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Link-local scope
FF05:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Site-local scope
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
[RFC5036] does not specify which particular IPv6 'all routers on
this subnet' group multicast IP address should be used by LDP Link
Hellos.
This document specifies the usage of link-local scope e.g.
FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 as the destination multicast IP address in IPv6
LDP Link Hellos. An LDP Hello packet received on any of the other
destination addresses must be dropped. Additionally, the link-local
IPv6 address MUST be used as the source IP address in IPv6 LDP Link
Hellos.
Also, the LDP Link Hello packets must have their IPv6 Hop Limit set
to 255, and be checked for the same upon receipt before any further
processing, as specified in Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)[RFC5082]. The built-in inclusion of GTSM automatically
protects IPv6 LDP from off-link attacks.
More importantly, if an interface is a dual-stack LDP interface
(e.g. enabled with both IPv4 and IPv6 LDP), then the LSR must
periodically send both IPv4 and IPv6 LDP Link Hellos (using the same
LDP Identifier per section 4) and must separately maintain the Hello
adjacency for IPv4 and IPv6 on that interface.
In summary, the IPv4 and IPv6 LDP Link Hellos must carry the same
LDP identifier (assuming per-platform label space usage).
5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism
Suffice to say, the extended discovery mechanism (defined in section
2.4.2 of [RFC5036]) doesn't require any additional IPv6 specific
consideration, since the targeted LDP Hellos are sent to a pre-
configured (unicast) destination IPv6 address.
The link-local IP addresses MUST NOT be used as the source or
destination IPv6 addresses in extended discovery.
6. LDP Session Establishment and Maintenance
Section 2.5.1 of [RFC5036] defines a two-step process for LDP
session establishment, once the peer discovery has completed (LDP
Hellos have been exchanged):
1. Transport connection establishment
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
2. Session initialization
The forthcoming sub-sections discuss the LDP consideration for IPv6
and/or dual-stacking in the context of session establishment and
maintenance.
6.1. Transport connection establishment
Section 2.5.2 of [RFC5036] specifies the use of an optional
transport address object (TLV) in LDP Link Hello message to convey
the transport (IP) address, however, it does not specify the
behavior of LDP if both IPv4 and IPv6 transport address objects
(TLV) are sent in a Hello message or separate Hello messages. More
importantly, it does not specify whether both IPv4 and IPv6
transport connections should be allowed, if there were Hello
adjacencies for both IPv4 and IPv6 whether over a single interface
or multiple interfaces.
This document specifies that:
1. An LSR MUST NOT send a Hello containing both IPv4 and IPv6
transport address optional objects. In other words, there MUST
be at most one optional Transport Address object in a Hello
message. An LSR MUST include only the transport address whose
address family is the same as that of the IP packet carrying
Hello.
2. An LSR SHOULD accept the Hello message that contains both IPv4
and IPv6 transport address optional objects, but MUST use only
the transport address whose address family is the same as that
of the IP packet carrying Hello.
3. An LSR MUST send separate Hellos (each containing either IPv4
or IPv6 transport address optional object) for each IP address-
family, if LDP was enabled for both IP address-families.
4. An LSR MUST use a global unicast IPv6 address in IPv6 transport
address optional object of outgoing targeted hellos, and check
for the same in incoming targeted hellos (i.e. MUST discard the
hello, if it failed the check).
5. An LSR MUST prefer using global unicast IPv6 address for an LDP
session with a remote LSR, if it had to choose between global
unicast IPv6 address and link-local IPv6 address (pertaining to
the same LDP Identifier) for the transport connection.
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
6. An LSR SHOULD NOT create (or honor the request for creating) a
TCP connection for a new LDP session with a remote LSR, if they
already have an LDP session (for the same LDP Identifier)
established over whatever IP version transport.
This means that only one transport connection is established,
even if there are two Hello adjacencies (one for IPv4 and
another for IPv6). This is independent of whether the Hello
Adjacencies are created over a single interface (scenario 1 in
section 1.1) or multiple interfaces (scenario 2 in section 1.1)
between two LSRs.
7. An LSR SHOULD prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new
LDP session with a remote LSR, if it has both IPv4 and IPv6
hello adjacencies for the same LDP Identifier (over a dual-
stack interface, or two or more single-stack IPv4 and IPv6
interfaces). This applies to the section 2.5.2 of RFC5036.
8. An LSR SHOULD prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new
LDP session with a remote LSR, if they attempted two TCP
connections using IPv4 and IPv6 transport addresses
simultaneously.
An implementation may provide an option to favor one AFI (IPv4, say)
over another AFI (IPv6, say) for the TCP transport connection, so as
to use the preferred IP version for the LDP session, and derive
deterministic active/passive roles.
6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies
As outlined in section 2.5.5 of RFC5036, this draft describes that
if an LSR has a dual-stack interface, which is enabled with both
IPv4 and IPv6 LDP, then the LSR must periodically send both IPv4 and
IPv6 LDP Link Hellos and must separately maintain the Hello
adjacency for IPv4 and IPv6 on that interface.
This ensures successful labeled IPv4 and labeled IPv6 traffic
forwarding on a dual-stacked interface, as well as successful LDP
peering using the appropriate transport on a multi-access
interface (even if there are IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-stack
LSRs connected to that multi-access interface).
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions
Two LSRs maintain a single LDP session between them (i.e. not tear
down an existing session), as described in section 6.1, whether
- they are connected via a dual-stack LDP enabled interface or via
two single-stack LDP enabled interfaces;
- a single-stack interface is converted to a dual-stack interface
(e.g. figure 1) on either LSR;
- an additional single-stack or dual-stack interface is added or
removed between two LSRs (e.g. figure 2).
Needless to say that the procedures defined in section 6.1 should
result in preferring LDPoIPv6 session only after the loss of an
existing LDP session (because of link failure, node failure, reboot
etc.).
On the other hand, if a dual-stack interface is converted to a
single-stack interface (by disabling IPv4 or IPv6 routing), then the
LDP session should be torn down ONLY if the disabled IP version was
the same as that of the transport connection. Otherwise, the LDP
session should stay intact.
If the LDP session is torn down for whatever reason (LDP disabled
for the corresponding transport, hello adjacency expiry etc.), then
the LSRs should initiate establishing a new LDP session as per the
procedures described in section 6.1 of this document along with
RFC5036.
7. Label Distribution
An LSR SHOULD NOT advertise both IPv4 and IPv6 FEC-label bindings
(as well as interface addresses via ADDRESS message) from/to the
peer over an LDP session (using whatever transport), unless it has
valid IPv4 and IPv6 Hello Adjacencies for that peer, as specified in
section 6.2.
Another solution for getting the same result as above is by
negotiating the IP Capability for a given AFI, as specified in
[IPPWCap].
An LSR MUST NOT allocate and advertise FEC-Label bindings for link-
local IPv6 address, and ignore such bindings, if ever received. An
LSR MUST treat the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, defined in section
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
2.5.5.2 of [RFC4291], the same as that of a global IPv6 address and
not mix it with the 'corresponding' IPv4 address.
Additionally, to ensure backward compatibility (and interoperability
with IPv4-only LDP implementations), this document specifies that -
1. An LSR MUST NOT send a label mapping message with a FEC TLV
containing FEC Elements of different address-family. In other
words, a FEC TLV in the label mapping message MUST contain the
FEC Elements belonging to the same address-family.
2. An LSR MUST NOT send an Address message (or Address Withdraw
message) with an Address List TLV containing IP addresses of
different address-family. In other words, an Address List TLV
in the Address (or Address Withdraw) message MUST contain the
addresses belonging to the same address-family.
8. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses
RFC5036 section 2.7 specifies logic for mapping between a peer LDP
Identifier and the peer's addresses to find the correct LIB entry
for any prefix by using a database populated by the Address message.
However, this logic is insufficient to deal with overlapping IPv6
(link-local) addresses used by two or more peers. One may note that
all interior IP routing protocols specify using link-local IPv6
addresses as the next-hops.
This document specifies that the logic is enhanced with the usage of
(Hello Adjacency) database populated by the Hello messages. This
additional database lookup is useful if/when two or more peers use
the same link-local IPv6 address as the IP routing next-hops
(causing duplicate next-hop entries).
Specifically, this document specifies that an LSR should (continue
to) use the machinery described in RFC5036 section 2.7 to map
between a peer LDP Identifier and the peer's addresses (learned via
ADDRESS message) for any prefix. However, if this mapping fails (for
reasons such as the one described earlier), then an LSR can find the
peer LDP Identifier by checking for the particular link-local IPv6
address and interface (corresponding to the next-hop in the unicast
routing table) in the hello adjacency database.
If an LSR can't find such a mapping in either database, then LSR
should follow procedures specified in RFC5036 (e.g. not resolve the
label).
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
Lastly, for better scale and optimization, an LSR may advertise only
the link-local IPv6 addresses in the Address message, assuming that
the peer uses only the link-local IPv6 addresses as static and/or
dynamic IP routing next-hops.
9. LDP TTL Security
This document also specifies that the LDP/TCP transport connection
over IPv6 (i.e. LDPoIPv6) must follow the Generalized TTL Security
Mechanism (GTSM) procedures (Section 3 of [RFC5082]) for an LDP
session peering established between the adjacent LSRs using Basic
Discovery, by default.
In other words, GTSM is enabled by default for an IPv6 LDP peering
session using Basic Discovery. This means that the 'IP Hop Limit' in
IPv6 packet is set to 255 upon sending, and checked to be 255 upon
receipt. The IPv6 packet must be dropped failing such a check upon
receipt.
The reason GTSM is enabled for Basic Discovery by default, but not
for Extended Discovery is that the usage of Basic Discovery
typically results in a single-hop LDP peering session, whereas the
usage of Extended Discovery typically results in a multi-hop LDP
peering session. While the latter is deemed out of scope (section
1.2), in line with GTSM [RFC5082], it is worth clarifying the
following exceptions that may occur with Basic or Extended Discovery
usage:
a) Two adjacent LSRs (i.e. back-to-back PE routers) forming a
single-hop LDP peering session after doing an Extended Discovery
(for Pseudowire, say)
b) Two adjacent LSRs forming a multi-hop LDP peering session after
doing a Basic Discovery, due to the way IP routing changes
between them (temporarily (e.g. session protection) or
permanently)
c) Two adjacent LSRs (i.e. back-to-back PE routers) forming a
single-hop LDP peering session after doing both Basic and
Extended Discovery
In (a), GTSM is not enabled for the LDP peering session by default,
hence, it would not do any harm or good.
In (b), GTSM is enabled by default for the LDP peering session by
default and enforced, hence, it would prohibit the LDP peering
session from getting established.
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
In (c), GTSM is enabled by default for Basic Discovery and enforced
on the subsequent LDP peering. However, if each LSR uses the same
IPv6 transport address object value in both Basic and Extended
discoveries, then it would result in a single LDP peering session
and that would be enabled with GTSM. Otherwise, GTSM would not be
enforced on the 2nd LDP peering session corresponding to the
Extended Discovery.
This document allows for the implementation to provide an option to
statically (configuration) and/or dynamically override the default
behavior (enable/disable GTSM) on a per-peer basis. This would also
address the exception (b) above. Suffice to say that such an option
could be set on either LSR (since GTSM negotiation would ultimately
disable GTSM between LSR and its peer(s)).
The built-in GTSM inclusion is intended to automatically protect
IPv6 LDP peering session from off-link attacks.
10. IANA Considerations
None.
11. Security Considerations
The extensions defined in this document only clarify the behavior of
LDP, they do not define any new protocol procedures. Hence, this
document does not add any new security issues to LDP.
While the security issues relevant for the [RFC5036] are relevant
for this document as well, this document reduces the chances of off-
link attacks when using IPv6 transport connection by including the
use of GTSM procedures [RFC5082].
Moreover, this document allows the use of IPsec [RFC4301] for IPv6
protection, hence, LDP can benefit from the additional security as
specified in [RFC4835] as well as [RFC5920].
12. Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the authors of [RFC5036], since the text in this
document is borrowed from [RFC5036].
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
Thanks to Bob Thomas for providing critical feedback to improve this
document early on. Thanks to Eric Rosen, Lizhong Jin, Bin Mo, Mach
Chen, and Kishore Tiruveedhula for reviewing this document. The
authors also acknowledge the help of Manoj Dutta and Vividh Siddha.
Also, thanks to Andre Pelletier (who brought up the issue about
active/passive determination, and helped us craft the appropriate
solutions.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
13. Additional Contributors
The following individuals contributed to this document:
Kamran Raza
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Drive
Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, Canada
Email: skraza@cisco.com
Nagendra Kumar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park,
Bangalore, KT, India
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5082] Pignataro, C., Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., and
Savola, P., "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.
14.2. Informative References
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture and Internet
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
[RFC4798] De Clercq, et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS
Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
February 2007.
[IPPWCap] Raza, K., "LDP IP and PW Capability", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-
ip-pw-capability, June 2011.
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6 June 8, 2012
Author's Addresses
Vishwas Manral
Hewlet-Packard, Inc.
19111 Pruneridge Ave., Cupertino, CA, 95014
Phone: 408-447-1497
Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com
Rajiv Papneja
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Phone: +1 571 926 8593
EMail: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Asati, et. al Expires December 8, 2012 [Page 17]