draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13.txt		draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-14.txt
	OSPF Working Group X. Xu		LSR 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: October 19, 2020		Expires: November 29, 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
	April 17, 2020		May 28, 2020
	Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth		Signaling Entropy Label Capability and Entropy Readable Label Depth
	Using OSPF		Using OSPF
	draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-13		draft-ietf-ospf-mpls-elc-14
	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 Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated		given Label Switched Path (LSP) unless an egress LSR has indicated
	via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to		via signaling that it has the capability to process ELs, referred to
	as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that tunnel. In addition,		as the Entropy Label Capability (ELC), on that LSP. In addition, it
	it would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for		would be useful for ingress LSRs to know each LSR's capability for
	reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-		reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-
	balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This		balancing, referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD). This
	document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using		document defines a mechanism to signal these two capabilities using
	OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.		OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 and BGP-LS.
	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 October 19, 2020.		This Internet-Draft will expire on November 29, 2020.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2020 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 25 ¶
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3.1. Advertising ELC Using OSPFv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		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 OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and		state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGP) such as OSPFv2 [RFC8665] and
	OSPFv3 [RFC8666]. This draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC		OSPFv3 [RFC8666]. This draft defines a mechanism to signal the ELC
	using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.		using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
	In cases where LSPs are used (e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660], it would be		In cases where Segment Routing (SR) is used with the MPLS Data Plane
	useful for ingress LSRs to know each intermediate LSR's capability of		(e.g., SR-MPLS [RFC8660]), it would be useful for ingress LSRs to
	reading the maximum label stack depth and performing EL-based load-		know each intermediate LSR's capability of reading the maximum label
	balancing. This capability, referred to as Entropy Readable Label		stack depth and performing EL-based load-balancing. This capability,
	Depth (ERLD) as defined in [RFC8662] may be used by ingress LSRs to		referred to as Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) as defined in
	determine the position of the EL label in the stack, and whether it's		[RFC8662], may be used by ingress LSRs to determine the position of
	necessary to insert multiple ELs at different positions in the label		the EL label in the stack, and whether it is necessary to insert
	stack.		multiple ELs at different positions in the label stack. This
			document defines a mechanism to signal the ERLD using OSPFv2 and
			OSPFv3.
	2. Terminology		2. Terminology
	This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662].		This memo makes use of the terms defined in [RFC6790], and [RFC8662].
	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 BCP		"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
	14 [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.
	skipping to change at page 3, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 3, line 40 ¶
	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 interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce ELC		If a router has multiple interfaces, the router MUST NOT announce ELC
	unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs.		unless all of its interfaces are capable of processing ELs.
	If the router supports ELs on all of its interfaces, 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) distributes information between		The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPF Area Border Router
	connected areas it MUST preserve the ELC setting.		(ABR) distributes information between areas. To do so, an ABR MUST
			originate an OSPFv2 Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684] including
			the received ELC setting.
	When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a		When an OSPF Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR) redistributes a
	prefix from another instance of the OSPF or from some other protocol,		prefix from another instance of OSPF or from some other protocol, it
	it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix. The exact		SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the prefix if it exists. To do
	mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on the ASBR		so, an ASBR SHOULD originate an Extended Prefix Opaque LSA [RFC7684]
	is outside of the scope of this document.		including the ELC setting of the redistributed prefix. The flooding
			scope of the Extended Prefix Opaque LSA MUST match the flooding scope
			of the LSA that an ASBR originates as a result of the redistribution.
			The exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances
			on an ASBR is outside of the scope of this document.
	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 field to indicate		[RFC5340] defines the OSPFv3 PrefixOptions field to indicate
	capabilities associated with a prefix. A new bit in the OSPFv3		capabilities associated with a prefix. A new bit in the OSPFv3
	PrefixOptions is used to 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		0x40 - 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.
			The ELC signaling MUST be preserved when an OSPFv3 Area Border
			Router (ABR) distributes information between areas. The setting
			of the ELC Flag in the Inter-Area-Prefix-LSA [RFC5340] or in the
			Inter-Area-Prefix TLV [RFC8362], generated by an ABR, MUST be the
			same as the value the ELC Flag associated with the prefix in the
			source area.
			When an OSPFv3 Autonomous System Boundary Router (ASBR)
			redistributes a prefix from another instance of OSPFv3 or from
			some other protocol, it SHOULD preserve the ELC signaling for the
			prefix if it exists. The setting of the ELC Flag in the AS-
			External-LSA, NSSA-LSA [RFC5340] or in the External-Prefix TLV
			[RFC8362], generated by an ASBR, MUST be the same as the value of
			the ELC Flag associated with the prefix in the source domain. The
			exact mechanism used to exchange ELC between protocol instances on
			the ASBR is outside of the scope of this document.
	4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF		4. Advertising ERLD Using OSPF
	The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD sub-TLV [RFC8476] using the		The ERLD is advertised in a Node MSD TLV [RFC8476] using the ERLD-MSD
	ERLD-MSD type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].		type defined in [I-D.ietf-isis-mpls-elc].
	If a router has multiple interfaces with different capabilities of		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 value found across all of its interfaces.
	The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the		The absence of ERLD-MSD advertisements indicates only that the
	advertising node does not support advertisement of this capability.		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 [RFC8476], it MUST be ignored.
	The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in		The considerations for advertising the ERLD are specified in
	[RFC8662].		[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 (Distribution of Link-State and TE Information Using BGP)
			[RFC7752] using existing BGP-LS TLVs.
	The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined		The ELC is advertised using the Prefix Attribute Flags TLV as defined
	in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].		in [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext].
	The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in		The ERLD-MSD is advertised using the Node MSD TLV as defined in
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd].
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	Early allocation has been done by IANA for this document as follows:		Early allocation has been done by IANA for this document as follows:
	- Flag 0x20 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry has		- Flag 0x20 in the OSPFv2 Extended Prefix TLV Flags registry has
	been assigned to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). IANA is asked to update		been allocated by IANA to the E-Flag (ELC Flag).
	the registry to reflect the name used in this document: E-Flag
	(ELC Flag).
	- Bit 0x04 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry has		- Bit 0x40 in the "OSPFv3 Prefix Options (8 bits)" registry has
	been assigned to the E-Flag (ELC Flag). IANA is asked to update		been allocated by IANA to the E-Flag (ELC Flag).
	the registry to reflect the name used in this document: E-Flag
	(ELC Flag).
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node		This document specifies the ability to advertise additional node
	capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security		capabilities using OSPF and BGP-LS. As such, the security
	considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752],		considerations as described in [RFC5340], [RFC7770], [RFC7752],
	[RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662],		[RFC7684], [RFC8476], [RFC8662],
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-ext] and
	[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this		[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd] are applicable to this
	document.		document.
	Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or		Incorrectly setting the E flag during origination, propagation or
	redistribution may lead to black-holing of the traffic on the egress		redistribution may lead to poor or no load-balancing of the MPLS
	node.		traffic or black-holing of the MPLS traffic on the egress node.
	Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load-		Incorrectly setting of the ERLD value may lead to poor or no load-
	balancing of the traffic.		balancing of the MPLS traffic.
	8. 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
	skipping to change at page 6, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 9 ¶
	[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-		using Border Gateway Protocol - Link State", draft-ietf-
	idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-16 (work in progress),		idr-bgp-ls-segment-routing-msd-18 (work in progress), May
	March 2020.		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-11 (work in progress), March 2020.		isis-mpls-elc-12 (work in progress), April 2020.
	[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 7, line 45 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 5 ¶
	[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and		[RFC7770] Lindem, A., Ed., Shen, N., Vasseur, JP., Aggarwal, R., and
	S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional		S. Shaffer, "Extensions to OSPF for Advertising Optional
	Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,		Router Capabilities", RFC 7770, DOI 10.17487/RFC7770,
	February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.		February 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7770>.
	[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>.
			[RFC8362] Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
			F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
			Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
			2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
	[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.,		[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
	Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source		Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
	Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,		Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,		DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
End of changes. 27 change blocks.
	46 lines changed or deleted		74 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/