draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-04.txt   rfc5919.txt 
MPLS Working Group Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: Feb 2010 Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems
Emily Chen
Huawei Technologies
Bob Thomas
August 28, 2009 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Asati
Request for Comments: 5919 P. Mohapatra
Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-end-of-lib-04.txt ISSN: 2070-1721 E. Chen
Huawei Technologies
B. Thomas
August 2010
Status of this Memo Signaling LDP Label Advertisement Completion
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the Abstract
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering There are situations following Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that session establishment where it would be useful for an LDP speaker to
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- know when its peer has advertised all of its labels. The LDP
Drafts. specification provides no mechanism for an LDP speaker to notify a
peer when it has completed its initial label advertisements to that
peer. This document specifies means for an LDP speaker to signal
completion of its initial label advertisements following session
establishment.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Status of This Memo
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This is an Internet Standards Track document.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on Feb 28, 2010. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5919.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Abstract 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.
There are situations following Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
session establishment where it would be useful for an LDP speaker to Contributions published or made publicly available before November
know when its peer has advertised all of its labels. The LDP 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
specification provides no mechanism for an LDP speaker to notify a material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
peer when it has completed its initial label advertisements to that modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
peer. This document specifies means for an LDP speaker to signal Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
completion of its initial label advertisements following session the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
establishment. outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Specification Language.........................................3 1.1. Applicability - Label Advertisement Mode ...................3
3. Unrecognized Notification Capability...........................4 2. Specification Language ..........................................3
4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement....................4 3. Unrecognized Notification Capability ............................4
4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications.................5 4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement .....................4
5. Usage Guidelines...............................................6 4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications ..................5
5.1. LDP-IGP Sync..............................................7 5. Usage Guidelines ................................................6
5.2. LDP Graceful Restart......................................7 5.1. LDP-IGP Sync ...............................................6
5.3. Wildcard Label Request....................................8 5.2. LDP Graceful Restart .......................................7
6. Security Considerations........................................8 5.3. Wildcard Label Request .....................................7
7. IANA Considerations............................................8 6. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. Acknowledgments................................................9 7. IANA Considerations .............................................8
9. References....................................................10 8. Acknowledgments .................................................8
9.1. Normative References.....................................10 9. References ......................................................8
9.2. Informative References...................................10 9.1. Normative References .......................................8
Author's Addresses...............................................11 9.2. Informative References .....................................9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
There are situations following LDP session establishment where it There are situations following LDP session establishment where it
would be useful for an LDP speaker to know when its peer has would be useful for an LDP speaker to know when its peer has
advertised all of the labels from its Label Information Base (LIB). advertised all of the labels from its Label Information Base (LIB).
For example, when an LDP speaker is using LDP-IGP synchronization For example, when an LDP speaker is using LDP-IGP synchronization
procedures [RFC5443], it would be useful for the speaker to know when procedures [RFC5443], it would be useful for the speaker to know when
its peer has completed advertisement of its IP label bindings. its peer has completed advertisement of its IP label bindings.
Similarly, after an LDP session is re-established when LDP Graceful Similarly, after an LDP session is re-established when LDP Graceful
Restart [RFC3478] is in effect, it would be helpful for each peer to Restart [RFC3478] is in effect, it would be helpful for each peer to
signal the other after it has advertised all its label bindings. signal the other after it has advertised all its label bindings.
The LDP specification [RFC5036] provides no mechanism for an LDP The LDP specification [RFC5036] provides no mechanism for an LDP
speaker to notify a peer when it has completed its initial label speaker to notify a peer when it has completed its initial label
advertisements to that peer. advertisements to that peer.
This document specifies use of a Notification message with the "End- This document specifies use of a Notification message with the End-
of-LIB" Status Code for an LDP speaker to signal completion of its of-LIB Status Code for an LDP speaker to signal completion of its
label advertisements following session establishment. label advertisements following session establishment.
RFC5036 implicitly assumes that new Status Codes will be defined over RFC 5036 implicitly assumes that new Status Codes will be defined
the course of time. However, it does not explicitly define the over the course of time. However, it does not explicitly define the
behavior of an LDP speaker which does not understand the Status Code behavior of an LDP speaker that does not understand the Status Code
in a Notification message. To avoid backward compatibility issues in a Notification message. To avoid backward compatibility issues,
this document specifies use of the LDP capability mechanism [RFC5561] this document specifies use of the LDP capability mechanism [RFC5561]
at session establishment time for informing a peer that an LDP at session establishment time for informing a peer that an LDP
speaker is capable of handling a Notification message that carries an speaker is capable of handling a Notification message that carries an
unrecognized Status Code. unrecognized Status Code.
2. Specification Language 1.1. Applicability - Label Advertisement Mode
The mechanisms specified in this document are deemed useful to LDP
peering using the 'Downstream Unsolicited' label advertisement mode
[RFC5036]. They are not deemed useful to any LDP peering using the
'Downstream on Demand' label advertisement mode since the LDP speaker
would request particular label binding(s) from the peer anyway and
know when it has received them.
2. Specification Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Unrecognized Notification Capability 3. Unrecognized Notification Capability
An LDP speaker MAY include a Capability Parameter [RFC5561] in the An LDP speaker MAY include a Capability Parameter [RFC5561] in the
Initialization message to inform a peer that it ignores Notification Initialization message to inform a peer that it ignores Notification
Messages that carry a Status Type-Length-Value (TLV) with a non-fatal Messages that carry a Status Type-Length-Value (TLV) with a non-fatal
Status Code unknown to it. Status Code unknown to it.
The Capability Parameter for the Unrecognized Notification capability The Capability Parameter for the Unrecognized Notification capability
is a TLV with the following format: is a TLV with the following format:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|F| Unrecog Notif (IANA) | Length | |U|F| Unrecognized Noti (0x0603)| Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|S| Reserved | |S| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 Unrecognized Notification Capability format Figure 1: Unrecognized Notification Capability Format
Where: Where:
U and F bits: MUST be 1 and 0 respectively as per section 3 of LDP U- and F-bits: MUST be 1 and 0, respectively, as per Section 3 of
Capabilities [RFC5561]. LDP Capabilities [RFC5561].
Unrecog Notif: TLV code point to be assigned by IANA. Unrecognized Notif: 0x0603
S-bit: MUST be 1 (indicates that capability is being advertised). S-bit: MUST be 1 (indicates that capability is being advertised).
Upon receiving a Notification with an unrecognized Status Code an LDP Upon receiving a Notification with an unrecognized Status Code, an
speaker MAY generate a console or system log message for trouble LDP speaker MAY generate a console or system log message for trouble
shooting purposes. shooting purposes.
4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement 4. Signaling Completion of Label Advertisement
An LDP speaker that conforms to this specification SHOULD signal An LDP speaker that conforms to this specification SHOULD signal
completion of its label advertisements to a peer by means of a completion of its label advertisements to a peer by means of a
Notification message, if its peer has advertised the Unrecognized Notification message, if its peer has advertised the Unrecognized
Notification capability during session establishment. The LDP speaker Notification capability during session establishment. The LDP
SHOULD send the Notification message (per Forwarding Equivalence speaker SHOULD send the Notification message (per Forwarding
Class (FEC) Type) to a peer even if the LDP speaker had zero Label Equivalence Class (FEC) Type) to a peer even if the LDP speaker has
bindings to advertise to that peer. zero Label bindings to advertise to that peer.
Such a Notification message MUST carry: Such a Notification message MUST carry:
- A status TLV (with TLV E- and F-bits set to zero) that carries - A status TLV (with TLV E- and F-bits set to zero) that carries
an "End-of-LIB" Status Code (value to be assigned by IANA). an End-of-LIB Status Code (0x0000002F).
- A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [TypedWC] that - A FEC TLV with the Typed Wildcard FEC Element [RFC5918] that
identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements identifies the FEC type for which initial label advertisements
have been completed. In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC5036, have been completed. In terms of Section 3.5.1 of RFC 5036,
this TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification this TLV is an "Optional Parameter" of the Notification message.
message.
An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notification which carries a Status An LDP speaker MUST NOT send a Notification that carries a Status TLV
TLV with the End-of-LIB Status Code to a peer unless the peer had with the End-of-LIB Status Code to a peer unless the peer has
advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability during session advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability during session
establishment. establishment.
This applies to any LDP peers discovered via either basic discovery This applies to any LDP peers discovered via either basic discovery
or extended discovery mechanism (per section 2.4 of [RFC5036]). or extended discovery mechanisms (per Section 2.4 of [RFC5036]).
4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications 4.1. Missing Expected End-of-LIB Notifications
There is no guarantee that an LDP speaker will receive (or send) End- There is no guarantee that an LDP speaker will receive (or send) an
of-LIB Notification from (or to) a peer even if the LDP speaker has End-of-LIB Notification from (or to) a peer even if the LDP speaker
signaled the 'Unrecognized Notification' capability (section 3). has signaled the Unrecognized Notification capability (Section 3).
Although it is expected that an LDP speaker supporting Unrecognized Although it is expected that an LDP speaker supporting the
Notification Capability would support sending and receiving End-of- Unrecognized Notification capability would support sending and
LIB Notication, it is not mandatory by definition. receiving an End-of-LIB Notification, it is not mandatory by
definition.
Please note that this is not a concern since the LDP speaker would Please note that this is not a concern since the LDP speaker would
simply ignore the received Notification with End-of-LIB status code simply ignore the received Notification with an End-of-LIB status
(or any status code) that is not recognized or supported, by code (or any status code) that is not recognized or supported, by
definition. definition.
To deal with the possibility of missing End-of-LIB Notifications To deal with the possibility of missing End-of-LIB Notifications
after the LDP session establishment, an LDP speaker MAY time out after the LDP session establishment, an LDP speaker MAY time out
receipt of an expected End-of-LIB Notification. An LDP speaker SHOULD receipt of an expected End-of-LIB Notification. An LDP speaker
start a per-peer internal timer, called 'EOL Notification' timer (the SHOULD start a per-peer internal timer, called 'EOL Notification'
default value of 60 seconds is RECOMMENDED, though the value of this timer (the default value of 60 seconds is RECOMMENDED, though the
timer SHOULD be configurable) immediately following the LDP session value of this timer SHOULD be configurable) immediately following the
establishment. LDP session establishment.
This timer is reset by the subsequent label advertisement, and This timer is reset by the subsequent label advertisement, and
stopped by the End-of-LIB Notification message. Lacking any label stopped by the End-of-LIB Notification message. Lacking any label
advertisement from the peer, the timer would expire, resulting in the advertisement from the peer, the timer would expire, causing the LDP
LDP speaker to behave as if it had received the End-of-LIB speaker to behave as if it had received the End-of-LIB notification
notification from the peer. from the peer.
If the End-of-LIB Notification message is received after the timer If the End-of-LIB Notification message is received after the timer
expires, then the message SHOULD be ignored. expires, then the message SHOULD be ignored.
5. Usage Guidelines 5. Usage Guidelines
The FECs known to an LDP speaker and the labels the speaker has bound The FECs known to an LDP speaker and the labels the speaker has bound
to those FECs may change over the course of time. This makes to those FECs may change over the course of time. This makes it
determining when an LDP speaker has advertised "all" of its label difficult to determine when an LDP speaker has advertised "all" of
bindings for a given FEC type an issue. Ultimately, this its label bindings for a given FEC type. Ultimately, this
determination is a judgment call the LDP speaker makes. The determination is a judgment call the LDP speaker makes. The
following guidelines may be useful. following guidelines may be useful.
An LDP speaker is assumed to "know" a set of FECs. Depending on a An LDP speaker is assumed to "know" a set of FECs. Depending on a
variety of criteria, such as: variety of criteria, such as:
- The label distribution control mode in use (Independent or - the label distribution control mode in use (Independent or
Ordered); Ordered);
- The set of FEC's to which the speaker has bound local labels; - the set of FECs to which the speaker has bound local labels;
- Configuration settings which may constrain which label bindings - configuration settings that may constrain which label bindings
the speaker may advertise to peers; the speaker may advertise to peers.
the speaker can determine the set of bindings for a given FEC type The speaker can determine the set of bindings for a given FEC type
that it is permitted to advertise to a given peer. that it is permitted to advertise to a given peer.
LDP-IGP Sync, LDP Graceful Restart, and the response to a Wildcard LDP-IGP Sync, LDP Graceful Restart, and the response to a Wildcard
Label Request [TypedWC] are situations that would benefit from End- Label Request [RFC5918] are situations that would benefit from End-
of-LIB Notification. In these situations, after an LDP speaker of-LIB Notification. In these situations, after an LDP speaker
completes its label binding advertisements to a peer, sending an End- completes its label binding advertisements to a peer, sending an End-
of-LIB Notification to the peer makes their outcome deterministic. of-LIB Notification to the peer makes their outcome deterministic.
The following subsections further explain each of these situations The following subsections further explain each of these situations
one by one. one by one.
5.1. LDP-IGP Sync 5.1. LDP-IGP Sync
The LDP-IGP Synchronization [RFC5443] specifies a mechanism by which The LDP-IGP Synchronization [RFC5443] specifies a mechanism by which
directly connected LDP speakers may delay the use of the link between directly connected LDP speakers may delay the use of the link
them, for transit IP traffic forwarding until the labels required to (between them) for transit IP traffic forwarding until the labels
support IP over MPLS traffic forwarding have been distributed and required to support IP-over-MPLS traffic forwarding have been
installed. distributed and installed.
Without an End-of-LIB Notification, the speaker must rely on some Without an End-of-LIB Notification, the speaker must rely on some
heuristic to determine when it has received all of its peer's label heuristic to determine when it has received all of its peer's label
bindings. The heuristic chosen could cause LDP to signal the IGP too bindings. The heuristic chosen could cause LDP to signal the IGP too
soon in which case the likelihood that traffic will be dropped soon (in which case, the likelihood that traffic will be dropped
increases, or too late in which case traffic is kept on sub-optimal increases) or too late (in which case, traffic is kept on sub-optimal
paths longer than necessary. paths longer than necessary).
Following session establishment, with a directly connected peer that Following session establishment, with a directly connected peer that
has advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability, an LDP has advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability, an LDP
speaker using LDP-IGP Sync may send the peer an End-of-LIB speaker using LDP-IGP Sync may send the peer an End-of-LIB
Notification after it completes advertisement of its IP label Notification after it completes advertisement of its IP label
bindings to the peer. Similarly, the LDP speaker may use the End-of- bindings to the peer. Similarly, the LDP speaker may use the End-of-
LIB Notification received from a directly connected peer to determine LIB Notification received from a directly connected peer to determine
when the peer has completed advertisement of its label bindings for when the peer has completed advertisement of its label bindings for
IP prefixes. After receiving the notification, the LDP speaker IP prefixes. After receiving the notification, the LDP speaker
should consider LDP to be fully operational for the link and signal should consider LDP to be fully operational for the link and should
the IGP to start advertising the link with normal cost. signal the IGP to start advertising the link with normal cost.
5.2. LDP Graceful Restart 5.2. LDP Graceful Restart
LDP Graceful Restart [RFC3478] helps to reduce the loss of MPLS LDP Graceful Restart [RFC3478] helps to reduce the loss of MPLS
traffic caused by the restart of a router's LDP component. It traffic caused by the restart of a router's LDP component. It
defines procedures that allow routers capable of preserving MPLS defines procedures that allow routers capable of preserving MPLS
forwarding state across the restart to continue forwarding MPLS forwarding state across the restart to continue forwarding MPLS
traffic using forwarding state installed prior to the restart for a traffic using forwarding state installed prior to the restart for a
configured time period. configured time period.
The current behavior without End-of-LIB Notification is as follows: The current behavior without End-of-LIB Notification is as follows:
the restarting router and its peers consider the preserved forwarding the restarting router and its peers consider the preserved forwarding
state to be usable but stale until it is refreshed by receipt of new state to be usable but stale until it is refreshed by receipt of new
label advertisements following re-establishment of new LDP sessions label advertisements following re-establishment of new LDP sessions
or until the time period expires. When the time period expires, any or until the time period expires. When the time period expires, any
remaining stale forwarding state is removed by the router. remaining stale forwarding state is removed by the router.
Receiving End-of-LIB Notification from a peer in an LDP Graceful Receiving End-of-LIB Notification from a peer in an LDP Graceful
Restart scenario enables an LDP speaker to stop using stale Restart scenario enables an LDP speaker to stop using stale
forwarding information learned from that peer and to recover the forwarding information learned from that peer and to recover the
resources it requires without having to wait until the time period resources it requires without having to wait until the time period
expiry. The time period expiry can still be used if the End-of-LIB- expiry. The time period expiry can still be used if the End-of-LIB
Notification message is not received. Notification message is not received.
5.3. Wildcard Label Request 5.3. Wildcard Label Request
When an LDP speaker receives a Label Request message for a Typed When an LDP speaker receives a Label Request message for a Typed
Wildcard FEC (e.g. a particular FEC element type) from a peer it Wildcard FEC (e.g., a particular FEC Element Type) from a peer, the
determines the set of bindings, it is permitted to advertise the peer LDP speaker determines the set of bindings (as per any local
for the FEC type specified by the request. Assuming the peer had filtering policy) to advertise to the peer for the FEC type specified
advertised the Unrecognized Notification capability at session by the request. Assuming the peer had advertised the Unrecognized
initialization time, the speaker should send the peer an End-of-LIB Notification capability at session initialization time, the speaker
Notification for the FEC type when it completes advertisement of the should send the peer an End-of-LIB Notification for the FEC type when
permitted bindings. it completes advertisement of the permitted bindings.
As in the previous applications, receipt of the Notification As in the previous applications, receipt of the Notification
eliminates uncertainty as to when the peer has completed its eliminates uncertainty as to when the peer has completed its
advertisements of label bindings for the requested Wildcard FEC advertisements of label bindings for the requested Wildcard FEC
Element Type. Element Type.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP
specification [RFC5036] and further described in [MPLSsec] apply to specification [RFC5036] and that are further described in [RFC5920]
signaling the End-of-LIB condition as described in this document. apply to signaling the End-of-LIB condition as described in this
document.
7. IANA Considerations
This draft introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP Capability 7. IANA Considerations
both of which require IANA assignment -
The 'End-of-LIB' status code requires a code point from the Status This document introduces a new LDP Status Code and a new LDP
Code Name Space. [RFC5036] partitions the Status Code Name Space Capability.
into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come First Served
region, and Private Use region. The authors recommend that a code
point from the IETF Consensus range be assigned to the 'End-of-
LIB' status code.
The 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability requires a code point IANA has assigned the 'End-of-LIB' status code (0x0000002F) from
from the TLV Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the TLV TYPE the Status Code Name Space. [RFC5036] partitions the Status Code
name space into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come Name Space into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, First Come First
First Served region, and Private Use region. The authors Served region, and Private Use region. The code point 0x0000002F
recommend that a code point from the IETF Consensus range be is from the IETF Consensus range.
assigned to the 'Unrecognized Notification' Capability.
8. Acknowledgments IANA has assigned the 'Unrecognized Notification' capability
(0x0603) from the TLV Type name space. [RFC5036] partitions the
TLV Type name space into 3 regions: IETF Consensus region, Vendor
Private Use region, and Experimental Use region. The code point
0x0603 is from the IETF Consensus range.
The authors would like to recognize Kamran Raza, who helped to 8. Acknowledgments
formulate this draft.
The authors would like to thank Ina Minei, Alia Atlas, Yakov Rekhter, The authors would like to recognize Kamran Raza, who helped to
Loa Andersson and Luyuan Fang for their valuable feedback and formulate this draft.
contribution.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. The authors would like to thank Ina Minei, Alia Atlas, Yakov
Rekhter, Loa Andersson, and Luyuan Fang for their valuable
feedback and contributions.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[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, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, January 2001. "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC5561] Thomas, B., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., Le Roux, J.L., "LDP [RFC5561] Thomas, B., Raza, K., Aggarwal, S., Aggarwal, R., and JL.
Capabilities", RFC5561, May 2007. Le Roux, "LDP Capabilities", RFC 5561, July 2009.
[TypedWC] Thomas, B., Minei, I., "LDP Typed Wildcard FEC", draft- [RFC5918] Asati, R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-03, Work in Progress, March Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
2008. (FEC)", RFC 5918, August 2010.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., Fang, L., "LDP IGP Synchronization", [RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., and R. Aggarwal, "Graceful
RFC5443, Dec 2007. Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", RFC
3478, February 2003.
[RFC3478] Leelanivas, M., Rekhter, Y., Aggarwal, R., "Graceful [RFC5443] Jork, M., Atlas, A., and L. Fang, "LDP IGP
Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol", Synchronization", RFC 5443, March 2009.
February 2003.
[MPLSsec] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", [RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
draft-ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework-06, Work Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
in Progress, July 13 2009.
Author's Addresses Authors' Addresses
Rajiv Asati Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Cisco Systems
7025-6 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987 7025-6 Kit Creek Rd.
Email: rajiva@cisco.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
EMail: rajiva@cisco.com
Pradosh Mohapatra Pradosh Mohapatra
Cisco Systems, Cisco Systems
3750 Cisco Way, San Jose, CA, 95134 3750 Cisco Way
Email: pmohapat@cisco.com San Jose, CA 95134
EMail: pmohapat@cisco.com
Bob Thomas
Email: bobthomas@alum.mit.edu
Emily Chen Emily Chen
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
No.5 Street, Shangdi Information, Haidian, Beijing, China No. 5 Street, Shangdi Information, Haidian
Email: chenying220@huawei.com Beijing, China
EMail: chenying220@huawei.com
Bob Thomas
EMail: bobthomas@alum.mit.edu
 End of changes. 75 change blocks. 
207 lines changed or deleted 203 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/