5462
PROPOSED STANDARD
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field
Authors: L. Andersson, R. Asati
Date: February 2009
Area: rtg
Working Group: mpls
Stream: IETF
Updates:
RFC 3032
Abstract
The early Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) documents defined the form of the MPLS label stack entry. This includes a three-bit field called the "EXP field". The exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use".
Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of Service" (CoS) field, it was not named a CoS field by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards documents define its usage as a CoS field.
To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has become increasingly necessary to rename this field. This document changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC field"). In doing so, it also updates documents that define the current use of the EXP field. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
RFC 5462
PROPOSED STANDARD
Errata Exist
Network Working Group L. Andersson
Request for Comments: 5462 Acreo AB
Updates: <a href="./rfc3032">3032</a>, <a href="./rfc3270">3270</a>, <a href="./rfc3272">3272</a>, <a href="./rfc3443">3443</a>, <a href="./rfc3469">3469</a>, R. Asati
<a href="./rfc3564">3564</a>, <a href="./rfc3985">3985</a>, <a href="./rfc4182">4182</a>, <a href="./rfc4364">4364</a>, <a href="./rfc4379">4379</a>, Cisco Systems
4448, 4761, 5129 February 2009
Category: Standards Track
<span class="h1">Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Stack Entry:</span>
<span class="h1">"EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic Class" Field</span>
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
The early Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) documents defined the
form of the MPLS label stack entry. This includes a three-bit field
called the "EXP field". The exact use of this field was not defined
by these documents, except to state that it was to be "reserved for
experimental use".
Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of
Service" (CoS) field, it was not named a CoS field by these early
documents because the use of such a CoS field was not considered to
be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards documents
define its usage as a CoS field.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 1]</span><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, it has
become increasingly necessary to rename this field. This document
changes the name of the field to the "Traffic Class field" ("TC
field"). In doing so, it also updates documents that define the
current use of the EXP field.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Details of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<a href="#section-2.4">2.4</a>. The Scope of This Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Use of the TC field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-7">7</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-8">8</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-9">9</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
The format of an MPLS label stack entry is defined by <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>
[<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>] to include a three-bit field called the "EXP field". The
exact use of this field is not defined by <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, except to state
that it is to be "reserved for experimental use".
The EXP field, from the start, was intended to carry "Class of
Service" (CoS) information. The field was actually called the "Class
of Service field" in early versions of the working group document
that was published as <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>. However, at the time that <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>
was published, the exact usage of this "Class of Service" field was
not agreed upon and the field was designated as "experimental use";
hence, the name has since been the "EXP field".
The designation "for experimental use" has led other Standards
Development Organizations (SDOs) and implementors to assume that it
is possible to use the field for other purposes. This document
changes the name of the field to clearly indicate its use as a
traffic classification field.
At first, we discussed using the original "CoS field" as the name for
the field, but it has been pointed out that this name does not cover
the following changes that have occurred with respect to its usage
since <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a> was published.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 2]</span><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
1. The use of the EXP field was first defined in <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> [<a href="./rfc3270" title=""Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services"">RFC3270</a>],
where a method to define a variant of Diffserv Label Switched
Paths (LSP), called EXP-Inferred-PSC LSP (E-LSPs), was specified.
PSC is a two-stage acronym that is expanded as PHB (Per Hop
Behavior) Scheduling Class (PSC).
2. The use of the EXP field as defined in <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> has been further
extended in <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> [<a href="./rfc5129" title=""Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS"">RFC5129</a>], where methods for explicit
congestion marking in MPLS are defined.
This document, hence, uses the name "Traffic Class field (TC field)",
which better covers the potential use. The MPLS TC field relates to
an MPLS encapsulated packet the same way as the IPv6 TC field relates
to an IPv6 encapsulated packet or the IPv4 Precedence field relates
to an IPv4 encapsulated packet.
The definitions of how the EXP field is used are perfectly clear in
<a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> and <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a>. However, these RFCs do not explicitly state
they update <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, and this fact was not captured in the RFC
repository until after work on this document was started.
This document updates <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a>, and <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> to clarify the
intended usage of the TC field. The changes to these RFCs requires
some changes to the actual text in those documents; <a href="#section-2">Section 2</a>
explains the changes.
This document also updates several other RFCs; see <a href="#section-2.4">Section 2.4</a>. For
these documents, the change is limited to changing the name of the
Label Stack entry field.
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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Details of Change</span>
The three RFCs 3032, 3270, and 5129 are now updated according to the
following.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a></span>
<a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a> states on page 4:
3. Experimental Use
This three-bit field is reserved for experimental use.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 3]</span><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
This paragraph is now changed to:
3. Traffic Class (TC) field
This three-bit field is used to carry traffic class information,
and the change of the name is applicable to all places it occurs
in IETF RFCs and other IETF documents.
<a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> and <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> update the definition of the TC field and
describe how to use the field.
In Figure 1 on page 3 in <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, the format of a label stack entry
is specified as:
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
| Label | Exp |S| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry
Label: Label Value, 20 bits
Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
Figure 1
Figure 1 in <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a> is now changed to match the change of name to TC
field:
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
| Label | TC |S| TTL | Stack
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry
Label: Label Value, 20 bits
TC: Traffic Class field, 3 bits
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
Figure 1 (new)
Note: The designation of the picture above as "Figure 1 (new)" is
introduced as a way to distinguish the figures in this document. It
will still be "Figure 1" in <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 4]</span><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.2" href="#section-2.2">2.2</a>. <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a></span>
<a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> says on page 6:
1.2 EXP-Inferred-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs
can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the EXP field of the MPLS
Shim Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied
to the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop
preference.
We refer to such LSPs as "EXP-inferred-PSC LSPs" (E-LSP), since
the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP depends on the EXP
field value for that packet.
The mapping from the EXP field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP, is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in <a href="#section-3">section 3</a> below.
<a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> is now updated like this:
a. A new paragraph is added at the end of <a href="#section-1">Section 1</a> "Introduction":
The EXP field has been renamed the TC field, and thus all
references in <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> to the EXP field now refer to the TC
field.
b. A new term is added to <a href="#section-1.1">Section 1.1</a> "Terminology":
TC Traffic Class (replaces the term EXP)
c. In <a href="#section-1.1">Section 1.1</a> "Terminology", the acronym E-LSP is now understood
to mean:
E-LSP Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSP
<a href="#section-1.2">Section 1.2</a> on page 6 in <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> is now changed to:
1.2 Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSPs (E-LSP)
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> to EXP field now refer to the TC field.
However, we retain the acronym E-LSP (Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC
LSP) as the acronym is in widespread use.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 5]</span><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
A single LSP can be used to support one or more OAs. Such LSPs
can support up to eight BAs of a given FEC, regardless of how many
OAs these BAs span. With such LSPs, the TC field of the MPLS Shim
Header is used by the LSR to determine the PHB to be applied to
the packet. This includes both the PSC and the drop preference.
We refer to such LSPs as "Explicitly TC-encoded-PSC LSPs"
(E-LSPs), since the PSC of a packet transported on this LSP
depends on the TC field (previously called the EXP field) value
for that packet.
The mapping from the TC field to the PHB (i.e., to PSC and drop
precedence) for a given such LSP is either explicitly signaled at
label set-up or relies on a pre-configured mapping.
This is an update to <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a> [<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>], in line with the original
intent of how this field in the MPLS Shim Header should be used
(as a TC field). <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> has itself been updated by <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a>
[<a href="./rfc5129" title=""Explicit Congestion Marking in MPLS"">RFC5129</a>].
Detailed operations of E-LSPs are specified in Section 3 of <a href="./rfc3270">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3270">3270</a>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.3" href="#section-2.3">2.3</a>. <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a></span>
<a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> is now updated like this:
A new paragraph is added at the end of <a href="#section-1.1">Section 1.1</a> "Background":
The EXP field has been renamed to the TC field, and thus all
references in <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> to the EXP field now refer to the TC field.
<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a> (bullet 5) on page 7 of <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> says:
o A third possible approach was suggested by [<a href="#ref-Shayman" title=""Using ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain"">Shayman</a>]. In this
scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If
an interior LSR has marked ECN in the EXP field of the shim
header, but the IP header says the endpoints are not ECN-capable,
the edge router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop
popping) drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we
call `per-domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in
the following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause
packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this
decision is given in <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 6]</span><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
<a href="#section-2">Section 2</a> (bullet 5) of <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a> is now updated to:
o A third possible approach was suggested by [<a href="#ref-Shayman" title=""Using ECN to Signal Congestion Within an MPLS Domain"">Shayman</a>]. In this
scheme, interior LSRs assume that the endpoints are ECN-capable,
but this assumption is checked when the final label is popped. If
an interior LSR has marked ECN in the TC field of the shim header,
but the IP header says the endpoints are not TC-capable, the edge
router (or penultimate router, if using penultimate hop popping)
drops the packet. We recommend this scheme, which we call `per-
domain ECT checking', and define it more precisely in the
following section. Its chief drawback is that it can cause
packets to be forwarded after encountering congestion only to be
dropped at the egress of the MPLS domain. The rationale for this
decision is given in <a href="#section-8.1">Section 8.1</a>. This scheme is an update to <a href="./rfc3032">RFC</a>
<a href="./rfc3032">3032</a> [<a href="./rfc3032" title=""MPLS Label Stack Encoding"">RFC3032</a>] and <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a> [<a href="./rfc3270" title=""Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services"">RFC3270</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.4" href="#section-2.4">2.4</a>. The Scope of This Change</span>
There are several places in the RFCs that are explicitly updated by
this document that reference the "Exp field", sometimes they refer to
the field as "Exp bits", "EXP bits", or "EXP". In all those
instances, the references now reference the TC field.
There are also other RFCs (e.g., <a href="./rfc3272">RFC 3272</a> [<a href="./rfc3272" title=""Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering"">RFC3272</a>], <a href="./rfc3443">RFC 3443</a>
[<a href="./rfc3443" title=""Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks"">RFC3443</a>], <a href="./rfc3469">RFC 3469</a> [<a href="./rfc3469" title=""Framework for Multi- Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery"">RFC3469</a>], <a href="./rfc3564">RFC 3564</a> [<a href="./rfc3564" title=""Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering"">RFC3564</a>], <a href="./rfc3985">RFC 3985</a>
[<a href="./rfc3985" title=""Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to- Edge (PWE3) Architecture"">RFC3985</a>], <a href="./rfc4182">RFC 4182</a> [<a href="./rfc4182" title=""Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS Explicit NULL"">RFC4182</a>], <a href="./rfc4364">RFC 4364</a> [<a href="./rfc4364" title=""BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)"">RFC4364</a>], <a href="./rfc4379">RFC 4379</a>
[<a href="./rfc4379" title=""Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"">RFC4379</a>], <a href="./rfc4448">RFC 4448</a> [<a href="./rfc4448" title=""Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS Networks"">RFC4448</a>], and <a href="./rfc4761">RFC 4761</a> [<a href="./rfc4761" title=""Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling"">RFC4761</a>]) that reference
the "Exp field"; sometimes they refer to the field as "Exp bits",
"EXP bits", and "EXP". For all RFCs, including but not limited to
those mentioned in this paragraph, such references now reference the
TC field.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Use of the TC field</span>
Due to the limited number of bits in the TC field, their use for QoS
and ECN (Explicit Congestion Notification) functions is intended to
be flexible. These functions may rewrite all or some of the bits in
the TC field.
Current implementations look at the TC field with and without label
context, and the TC field may be copied to the label stack entries
that are pushed onto the label stack. This is done to avoid label
stack entries that are pushed onto an existing label stack having
different TC fields from the rest of the label stack entries.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 7]</span><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document only changes the name of one field in the MPLS shim
header, and thus does not introduce any new security considerations.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Acknowledgments</span>
The authors would like to thank Stewart Bryant, Bruce Davie, George
Swallow, and Francois Le Faucheur for their input to and review of
the current document.
The authors would also like to thank George Swallow, Khatri Paresh,
and Phil Bedard for their help with grammar and spelling; a special
thanks to Adrian Farrel for his careful review and help trawling the
RFC-sea for RFCs that reference the EXP field.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>, March 1997.
[<a id="ref-RFC3032">RFC3032</a>] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", <a href="./rfc3032">RFC 3032</a>, January 2001.
[<a id="ref-RFC3270">RFC3270</a>] 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", <a href="./rfc3270">RFC 3270</a>, May 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3272">RFC3272</a>] Awduche, D., Chiu, A., Elwalid, A., Widjaja, I., and X.
Xiao, "Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
Engineering", <a href="./rfc3272">RFC 3272</a>, May 2002.
[<a id="ref-RFC3443">RFC3443</a>] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
<a href="./rfc3443">RFC 3443</a>, January 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3469">RFC3469</a>] Sharma, V. and F. Hellstrand, "Framework for Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery", <a href="./rfc3469">RFC 3469</a>,
February 2003.
[<a id="ref-RFC3564">RFC3564</a>] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
<a href="./rfc3564">RFC 3564</a>, July 2003.
<span class="grey">Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 8]</span><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc5462">RFC 5462</a> MPLS TC Field Definition February 2009</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC3985">RFC3985</a>] Bryant, S. and P. Pate, "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", <a href="./rfc3985">RFC 3985</a>, March 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4182">RFC4182</a>] Rosen, E., "Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS
Explicit NULL", <a href="./rfc4182">RFC 4182</a>, September 2005.
[<a id="ref-RFC4364">RFC4364</a>] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", <a href="./rfc4364">RFC 4364</a>, February 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4379">RFC4379</a>] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", <a href="./rfc4379">RFC 4379</a>,
February 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4448">RFC4448</a>] Martini, L., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., and G. Heron,
"Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Ethernet over MPLS
Networks", <a href="./rfc4448">RFC 4448</a>, April 2006.
[<a id="ref-RFC4761">RFC4761</a>] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Virtual Private LAN Service
(VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling",
<a href="./rfc4761">RFC 4761</a>, January 2007.
[<a id="ref-RFC5129">RFC5129</a>] Davie, B., Briscoe, B., and J. Tay, "Explicit Congestion
Marking in MPLS", <a href="./rfc5129">RFC 5129</a>, January 2008.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-Shayman">Shayman</a>] Shayman, M. and R. Jaeger, "Using ECN to Signal Congestion
Within an MPLS Domain", Work in Progress, November 2000.
Authors' Addresses
Loa Andersson
Acreo AB
EMail: [email protected]
Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems
EMail: [email protected]
Andersson & Asati Standards Track [Page 9]
Annotations
Select text to annotate