draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13.txt
	OSPF Working Group X. Xu		OSPF Working Group X. Xu
	Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc		Internet-Draft Alibaba Inc
	Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini		Intended status: Standards Track S. Kini
	Expires: April 27, 2020		Expires: October 19, 2020
	P. Psenak		P. Psenak
	C. Filsfils		C. Filsfils
	S. Litkowski		S. Litkowski
	Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco Systems, Inc.
	M. Bocci		M. Bocci
	Nokia		Nokia
	October 25, 2019		April 17, 2020
	Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label-stack		Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
	Depth Using OSPF		Using OSPF
	draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-12		draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13
	Abstract		Abstract
	Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-		Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) has defined a mechanism to load-
	balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label		balance traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). An ingress Label
	Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a		Switching Router (LSR) cannot insert ELs for packets going into a
	given tunnel unless an egress LSR has indicated via signaling that it		given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
	has the capability to process ELs, referred to as Entropy Label		via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
	Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition, it would be useful		as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition,
	for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability of reading the maximum		it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
	label stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing, referred to		reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
	as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This document defines a		balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This
	mechanism to signal these two capabilities using OSPF and OSPFv3.		document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
	These mechanism is particularly useful in the environment where		OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
	Segment Routing (SR) is used, where label advertisements are done via
	protocols like OSPF and OSPFv3.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2020.
			This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	[RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label		[RFC6790] describes a method to load-balance Multiprotocol Label
	Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also		Switching (MPLS) traffic flows using Entropy Labels (EL). It also
	introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines		introduces the concept of Entropy Label Capability (ELC) and defines
	the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.		the signaling of this capability via MPLS signaling protocols.
	Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-		Recently, mechanisms have been defined to signal labels via link-
	state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPF		state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]. In such scenarios, the		OSPFv3 [RFC8666]. This draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC
	signaling mechanisms defined in [RFC6790] are inadequate. This draft		using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
	defines a mechanism to signal the ELC using OSPF. This mechanism is
	useful when the label advertisement is also done via OSPF.
	In addition, in the cases where stacked LSPs are used for whatever		In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be
	reasons (e.g., SR-MPLS [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]), it		useful for ingress LSRs to know each intermediate LSR's capability of
	would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each intermediate LSR's		reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
	capability of reading the maximum label stack depth and performing		balancing. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label
	EL-based load-balancing. This capability, referred to as Entropy		Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to
	Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] may be used by ingress LSRs to
	determine the position of the EL label in the stack, and whether it's		determine the position of the EL label in the stack, and whether it's
	necessary to insert multiple ELs at different positions in the label		necessary to insert multiple ELs at different positions in the label
	stack.		stack.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	This document makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], [RFC7770]		This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662].
	and [I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label].
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
	"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	[BCP14] [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all		14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
	capitals, as shown here.		capitals, as shown here.
			The key word OSPF is used throughout the document to refer to both
			OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
	3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF		3. Advertising ELC Using OSPF
	Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is		Even though ELC is a property of the node, in some cases it is
	advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with the prefix. In		advantageous to associate and advertise the ELC with a prefix. In
	multi-area networks, routers may not know the identity of the prefix		multi-area networks, routers may not know the identity of the prefix
	originator in a remote area, or may not know the capabilities of such		originator in a remote area, or may not know the capabilities of such
	originator. Similarly, in a multi domain network, the identity of		originator. Similarly, in a multi domain network, the identity of
	the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the		the prefix originator and its capabilities may not be known to the
	ingress LSR.		ingress LSR.
	If a router has multiple line cards, the router MUST NOT announce ELC		If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce ELC
	unless all of its line-cards are capable of processing ELs.		unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs.
	If the router supports ELs on all of its line cards, it SHOULD		If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, it SHOULD
	advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.		advertise the ELC with every local host prefix it advertises in OSPF.
	When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) advertises the prefix to the		When an OSPF Area Border Router (ABR) distributes information between
	connected area based on the intra-area or inter-area prefix that is		connected areas it MUST preserve the ELC setting.
	reachable in some other area, it MUST preserve the ELC signalling for
	such prefix.
	When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes		When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a
	the prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other		prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol,
	protocol, it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix. The		it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix. The exact
	exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on		mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on the ASBR
	the ASBR is outside of the scope of this document and is		is outside of the scope of this document.
	implementation specific.
	3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2		3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2
	[RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV to advertise		[RFC7684] defines the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV to advertise
	additional attributes associated with a prefix. The OSPFv2 Extended		additional attributes associated with a prefix. The OSPFv2 Extended
	Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field. A new flag in the Flags		Prefix TLV includes a one octet Flags field. A new flag in the Flags
	field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:		field is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:
	0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to		0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to
	indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs.		indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs.
	3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3		3.2. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv3
	[RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions that are advertised along		[RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions field to indicate
	with the prefix. A new bit in the OSPFV3 PrefixOptions is used to		capabilities associated with a prefix. A new bit in the OSPFv3
	signal the ELC for the prefix:		PrefixOptions is used to signal the ELC for the prefix:
	0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to		0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag): Set by the advertising router to
	indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs.		indicate that the prefix originator is capable of processing ELs.
	4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF		4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF
	A new MSD (Maximum SID Depth) type of the Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476],		The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the
	called ERLD is defined to advertise the ERLD of a given router. The		ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
	scope of the advertisement depends on the application.
	Assignment of a MSD-Type for ERLD is defined in
	[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
	If a router has multiple line-cards with different capabilities for		If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of
	reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the		reading the maximum label stack depth, the router MUST advertise the
	smallest one.		smallest one.
			The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
			advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.
	When the ERLD MSD-Type is received in the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 Link MSD		When the ERLD MSD-Type is received in the OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 Link MSD
	Sub-TLV, it MUST be ignored.		Sub-TLV, it MUST be ignored.
			The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in
			[RFC8662].
	5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS		5. Signaling ELC and ERLD in BGP-LS
	The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via		The OSPF extensions defined in this document can be advertised via
	BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.		BGP-LS [RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.
	The ELC Flag included in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV and the		The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined
	OSPFv3 PrefixOptions, as defined in Section 3, is advertised using		in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
	the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV (TLV 1170) of the BGP-LS IPv4/IPv6
	Prefix NLRI Attribute as defined in section 2.3.2 of
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
	The ERLD MSD-type introduced for OSPF in Section 4 is advertised
	using the Node MSD TLV (TLV 266) of the BGP-LS Node NLRI Attribute as
	defined in section 3 of [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].
	6. Acknowledgements
	The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
	Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno
	Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
	7. IANA Considerations		The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in
			[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].
	This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv2		6. IANA Considerations
	Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry:
	0x20 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)		Early allocation has been done by IANA for this document as follows:
	This document requests IANA to allocate one flag from the OSPFv3		- Flag 0x20 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry has
	Prefix Options registry:		been assigned to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). IANA is asked to update
			the registry to reflect the name used in this document: E-Flag
			(ELC Flag).
	0x04 - E-Flag (ELC Flag)		- Bit 0x04 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry has
			been assigned to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). IANA is asked to update
			the registry to reflect the name used in this document: E-Flag
			(ELC Flag).
	8. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	The security considerations as described in [RFC7770] and		This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label] are applicable to this document.		capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security
			considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752],
			[RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662],
			[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and
			[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this
			document.
	Incorrectly setting the E flag (ELC capable) (during origination,		Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or
	inter-area advertisement or redistribution) may lead to black-holing		redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress
	of the traffic on the egress node.		node.
	Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor load-balancing		Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load-
	of the traffic.		balancing of the traffic.
	9. Contributors		8. Contributors
	The following people contributed to the content of this document and		The following people contributed to the content of this document and
	should be considered as co-authors:		should be considered as co-authors:
	Gunter Van de Velde (editor)		Gunter Van de Velde (editor)
	Nokia		Nokia
	Antwerp		Antwerp
	BE		BE
	Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com		Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com
	skipping to change at page 6, line 24 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 24 ¶
	Belgium		Belgium
	Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com		Email: wim.henderickx@nokia.com
	Keyur Patel		Keyur Patel
	Arrcus		Arrcus
	USA		USA
	Email: keyur@arrcus.com		Email: keyur@arrcus.com
			9. Acknowledgements
			The authors would like to thank Yimin Shen, George Swallow, Acee
			Lindem, Les Ginsberg, Ketan Talaulikar, Jeff Tantsura , Bruno
			Decraene and Carlos Pignataro for their valuable comments.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[BCP14] , <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext]
	Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,		Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
	and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment		and M. Chen, "BGP Link-State extensions for Segment
	Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16		Routing", draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext-16
	(work in progress), June 2019.		(work in progress), June 2019.
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd]
	Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,		Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Talaulikar, K., Mirsky, G.,
	and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)		and N. Triantafillis, "Signaling MSD (Maximum SID Depth)
	using Border Gateway Protocol Link-State", draft-ietf-idr-		using Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", draft-ietf-
	bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-09 (work in progress), October		idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16 (work in progress),
	2019.		March 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]		[I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc]
	Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,		Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
	and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and		and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
	Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-		Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", draft-ietf-
	isis-mpls-elc-10 (work in progress), October 2019.		isis-mpls-elc-11 (work in progress), March 2020.
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label]
	Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
	Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy label for SPRING
	tunnels", draft-ietf-mpls-spring-entropy-label-12 (work in
	progress), July 2018.
	[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
	Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B.,
	Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
	data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-22
	(work in progress), May 2019.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF		[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
	for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,		for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
	skipping to change at page 8, line 10 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶
	[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC		[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
	2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,		2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
	May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.		May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
	[RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,		[RFC8476] Tantsura, J., Chunduri, U., Aldrin, S., and P. Psenak,
	"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476,		"Signaling Maximum SID Depth (MSD) Using OSPF", RFC 8476,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8476, December 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8476>.
			[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
			Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
			Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]		[RFC8660] Bashandy, A., Ed., Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S.,
	Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,		Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
	Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF		Routing with the MPLS Data Plane", RFC 8660,
	Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-		DOI 10.17487/RFC8660, December 2019,
	routing-extensions-27 (work in progress), December 2018.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8660>.
			[RFC8665] Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
			H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
			Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
			[RFC8666] Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
			for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
			December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Xiaohu Xu		Xiaohu Xu
	Alibaba Inc		Alibaba Inc
	Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com		Email: xiaohu.xxh@alibaba-inc.com
	Sriganesh Kini		Sriganesh Kini
End of changes. 40 change blocks.
	116 lines changed or deleted		117 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/