| Internet Engineering Task Force | W. George, Ed. |
| Internet-Draft | Time Warner Cable |
| Intended status: Informational | C. Pignataro, Ed. |
| Expires: August 17, 2014 | Cisco Systems |
| February 13, 2014 |
Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks
draft-george-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04
This document reviews the MPLS protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This document is not intended to highlight a particular vendor's implementation (or lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality, but rather to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2014.
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
IPv6 is an integral part of modern network deployments. At the time when this document was written, the majority of these IPv6 deployments were using dual-stack implementations, where IPv4 and IPv6 are supported equally on many or all of the network nodes, and single-stack primarily referred to IPv4-only devices. Dual-stack deployments provide a useful margin for protocols and features that are not currently capable of operating solely over IPv6, because they can continue using IPv4 as necessary. However, as IPv6 deployment and usage becomes more pervasive, and IPv4 exhaustion begins driving changes in address consumption behaviors, there is an increasing likelihood that many networks will need to start operating some or all of their network nodes either as primarily IPv6 (most functions use IPv6, a few legacy features use IPv4), or as IPv6-only (no IPv4 provisioned on the device). This transition toward IPv6-only operation exposes any gaps where features, protocols, or implementations are still reliant on IPv4 for proper function. To that end, and in the spirit of RFC 6540's [RFC6540] recommendation that implementations need to stop requiring IPv4 for proper and complete function, this document reviews the Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) protocol suite in the context of IPv6 and identifies gaps that must be addressed in order to allow MPLS-related protocols and applications to be used with IPv6-only networks. This document is not intended to highlight a particular vendor's implementation (or lack thereof) in the context of IPv6-only MPLS functionality, but rather to focus on gaps in the standards defining the MPLS suite.
From a purely theoretical perspective, ensuring that MPLS is fully IP version-agnostic is the right thing to do. However, it is sometimes helpful to understand the underlying drivers that make this work necessary to undertake, especially at a time when IPv6-only networking is still fairly uncommon. This section will discuss some drivers. It is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of all potential use cases, but rather a discussion of at least one use case to demonstrate that this document is not discussing a purely theoretical problem.
IP convergence is continuing to drive new classes of devices to begin communicating via IP. Examples of such devices could include set top boxes for IP Video distribution, cell tower electronics (macro or micro cells), infrastructure Wi-Fi Access Points, and devices for machine to machine (M2M) or Internet of Things applications. In some cases, these classes of devices represent a very large deployment base, on the order of thousands or even millions of devices network-wide. The scale of these networks, coupled with the increasingly overlapping use of RFC 1918 [RFC1918] address space within the average network, and the lack of globally-routable IPv4 space available for long-term growth begins to drive the need for many of the endpoints in this network to be managed solely via IPv6. Even if these devices are carrying some IPv4 user data, it is often encapsulated in another protocol such that the communication between the endpoint and its upstream devices can be IPv6-only without impacting support for IPv4 on user data. Depending on the MPLS features required, it is plausible to assume that the (existing) MPLS network may need to be extended to these devices.
Additionally, as the impact of IPv4 exhaustion becomes more acute, more and more aggressive IPv4 address reclamation measures will be justified. Measures that were previously seen as too complex or as netting too few addresses for the work required may become more realistic as the cost for obtaining new IPv4 addresses increases. More and more networks are likely to adopt the general stance that IPv4 addresses need to be preserved for revenue-generating customers so that legacy support for IPv4 can be maintained as long as possible. As a result, it may be appropriate for some or all of the network infrastructure, including MPLS LSRs and LERs, to have its IPv4 addresses reclaimed and transition toward IPv6-only operation.
This gap analysis aims to answer the question, "what breaks when one attempts to use MPLS features on a network of IPv6-only devices?" The baseline assumption for this analysis is that some endpoints as well as Label Switch Routers (PE and P routers) only have IPv6 transport available, and need to support the full suite of MPLS features defined as of the time of this document's writing at parity with the support on an IPv4 network. This is necessary whether they are enabled via Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) RFC 5036 [RFC5036], Resource Reservation Protocol Extensions for MPLS Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) RFC 5420 [RFC5420], or Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) RFC 3107 [RFC3107], and whether they are encapsulated in MPLS RFC 3032 [RFC3032], IP RFC 4023 [RFC4023], Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) RFC 4023 [RFC4023], or Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (L2TPv3) RFC 4817 [RFC4817]. It is important when evaluating these gaps to distinguish between user data and control plane data, because while this document is focused on IPv6-only operation, it is quite likely that some amount of the user payload data being carried in the IPv6-only MPLS network will still be IPv4.
MPLS labeled packets can be transmitted over a variety of data links RFC 3032 [RFC3032], and MPLS labeled packets can also be encapsulated over IP. The encapsulations of MPLS in IP and GRE as well as MPLS over L2TPv3 support IPv6. See Section 3 of RFC 4023 [RFC4023] and Section 2 of RFC 4817 [RFC4817] respectively.
Gap: None.
Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) RFC 5036 [RFC5036] defines a set of procedures for distribution of labels between label switch routers that can use the labels for forwarding traffic. While LDP was designed to use an IPv4 or dual-stack IP network, it has a number of deficiencies that prohibit it from working in an IPv6-only network. LDP-IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] highlights some of the deficiencies when LDP is enabled in IPv6 only or dual-stack networks, and specifies appropriate protocol changes. These deficiencies are related to LSP mapping, LDP identifiers, LDP discovery, LDP session establishment, next hop address and LDP TTL security RFC 5082 [RFC5082] and RFC 6720 [RFC6720].
Gap: Major, update to RFC 5036 in progress that should close this gap.
Multipoint LDP (mLDP) is a set of extensions to LDP for setting up Point to Multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint to Multipoint (MP2MP) LSPs. These extensions are specified in RFC 6388 [RFC6388]. In terms of IPv6-only gap analysis, mLDP has two identified areas of interest:
For example, consider following setup, where R1/R6 are IPv4-only, R3/R4 are IPv6-only, and R2/R5 are dual-stack LSRs:
( IPv4-only ) ( IPv6-only ) ( IPv4-only )
R1 -- R2 -- R3 -- R4 -- R5 -- R6
Leaf Root
RFC 6512 [RFC6512] defines a recursive-FEC solution and procedures for mLDP when the backbone (transit/branch) LSRs have no route to the root. The proposed solution is defined for a BGP-free core in an VPN environment, but the similar concept can be used/extended to solve the above issue of IPv6-only backbone receiving an MP FEC element with an IPv4 address. The solution will require a border LSR (the one which is sitting on border of an IPv4/IPv6 island(s) (R2 and R5) to translate an IPv4 root address to equivalent IPv6 address (and vice vera) through the procedures similar to RFC6512. The translation of root address on borders of IPv4 or IPv6 islands will also be needed for recursive FECs and procedures defined in RFC6512.
Gap: Major, update in progress for LDP via LDP-IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6], may need additional updates to RFC6512.
Resource Reservation Protocol Extensions for MPLS Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) RFC 3209 [RFC3209] defines a set of procedures & enhancements to establish label-switched tunnels that can be automatically routed away from network failures, congestion, and bottlenecks. RSVP-TE allows establishing an LSP for an IPv4 or IPv6 prefix, thanks to its LSP_TUNNEL_IPv6 object and subobjects.
Gap: None
RFC3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to OSPF Version 2. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in OSPF Version 3.
RFC5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering capabilities to IS-IS. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC6119 [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks.
Gap: None
RFC4875 [RFC4875] describes extensions to RSVP-TE for the setup of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs in MPLS and GMPLS with support for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Gap: None
RFC4090 [RFC4090] specifies FRR mechanisms to establish backup LSP tunnels for local repair supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 networks. Further RFC5286 [RFC5286] describes the use of loop-free alternates to provide local protection for unicast traffic in pure IP and MPLS networks in the event of a single failure, whether link, node, or shared risk link group (SRLG) for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Gap: None
The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in RFC4655 [RFC4655] is an entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph, and applying computational constraints. A Path Computation Client (PCC) may make requests to a PCE for paths to be computed. The PCE communication protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs for path computations and is defined in RFC5440 [RFC5440].
The PCEP specification RFC5440 [RFC5440] is defined for both IPv4 and IPv6 with support for PCE discovery via an IGP (OSPF RFC5088 [RFC5088], or ISIS RFC5089 [RFC5089]) using both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Note that PCEP uses identical encoding of subobjects as in the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering Extensions (RSVP-TE) defined in RFC3209 [RFC3209] which supports both IPv4 and IPv6.
The extensions of PCEP to support confidentiality RFC5520 [RFC5520], Route Exclusion RFC5521, [RFC5521] Monitoring RFC5886 [RFC5886], and P2MP RFC6006 [RFC6006] have support for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Gap: None.
RFC3107 [RFC3107] specifies a set of BGP protocol procedures for distributing the labels (for prefixes corresponding to any address-family) between label switch routers so that they can use the labels for forwarding the traffic. RFC3107 allows BGP to distribute the label for IPv4 or IPv6 prefix in an IPv6 only network.
Gap: None.
RFC4558 [RFC4558] specifies Node-ID Based RSVP Hello Messages with capability for both IPv4 and IPv6. RFC4990 [RFC4990] clarifies the use of IPv6 addresses in GMPLS networks including handling in the MIB modules.
Gap: None.
L2VPN RFC 4664 [RFC4664] specifies two fundamentally different kinds of Layer 2 VPN services that a service provider could offer to a customer: Virtual Private Wire Service (VPWS) and Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS). RFC 4447 [RFC4447] and RFC 4762 [RFC4762] specify the LDP protocol changes to instantiate VPWS and VPLS services respectively in an MPLS network using LDP as the signaling protocol. This is complemented by RFC 6074 [RFC6074], which specifies a set of procedures for instantiating L2VPNs (e.g. VPWS, VPLS) using BGP as discovery protocol and LDP as well as L2TPv3 as signaling protocol. RFC 4761 [RFC4761] and RFC 6624 [RFC6624] specify BGP protocol changes to instantiate VPLS and VPWS services in an MPLS network, using BGP for both discovery and signaling.
In an IPv6-only MPLS network, use of L2VPN represents connection of Layer 2 islands over an IPv6 MPLS core, and very few changes are necessary to support operation over an IPv6-only network. The L2VPN signaling protocol is either BGP or LDP in an MPLS network, and both can run directly over IPv6 core infrastructure, as well as IPv6 edge devices. RFC 6074 [RFC6074] is the only RFC that appears to have a gap for IPv6-only operation. In its discovery procedures (section 3.2.2 and section 6), it suggests encoding PE IP address in the VSI-ID, which is encoded in NLRI, and should not exceed 12 bytes (to differentiate its AFI/SAFI encoding from RFC4761). This means that PE IP address can NOT be an IPv6 address. Also, in its signaling procedures (section 3.2.3), it suggests encoding PE_addr in SAII and TAII, which are limited to 32-bit (AII Type=1) at the moment.
Gap: Minor. RFC6074 needs to be updated.
EVPN [I-D.ietf-l2vpn-evpn] is still a work in progress. As such, it is out of scope for this gap analysis. Instead, the authors of that draft need to ensure that it supports IPv6-only operation, or if it cannot, identify dependencies on underlying gaps in MPLS protocol(s) that must be resolved before it can support IPv6-only operation.
RFC 4364 [RFC4364] defines a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. The following use cases arise in the context of this gap analysis:
Both use cases require mapping an IP packet to an IPv6-signaled LSP. RFC4364 defines as VPN-IPv4 address type, but not a VPN-IPv6 address type. RFC 4659 [RFC4659] corrects this oversight. Also, Section 5 of RFC 4364 [RFC4364] assumes that the BGP next-hop contains exactly 32 bits. This text should be generalized to include 128 bit next-hops as well.
The authors do not believe that there are any additional issues encountered when using L2TPv3, RSVP, or GRE (instead of MPLS) as transport on an IPv6-only network.
Gap: Major. RFC4364 must be updated, and RFC4659 may need to be updated to explicitly cover use case #2. (Discussed in further detail below)
RFC 4798 [RFC4798] defines 6PE, which defines how to interconnect IPv6 islands over a Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)-enabled IPv4 cloud. However, use case 2 is doing the opposite, and thus could also be referred to as 4PE. The method to support this use case is not defined explicitly. To support it, IPv4 edge devices need to be able to map IPv4 traffic to MPLS IPv6 core LSP's. Also, the core switches may not understand IPv4 at all, but in some cases they may need to be able to exchange Labeled IPv4 routes from one AS to a neighboring AS.
Gap: Major. RFC4659 needs to be updated to explicitly cover use case #2.
RFC 4659 [RFC4659] defines 6VPE, a method by which a Service Provider may use its packet-switched backbone to provide Virtual Private Network (VPN) services for its IPv6 customers. It allows the core network to be MPLS IPv4 or MPLS IPv6, thus addressing use case 1 above. RFC4364 should work as defined for use case 2 above, which could also be referred to as 4VPE, but the RFC does not explicitly discuss this use.
Gap: Minor. RFC4659 may need to be updated to explicitly cover use case #2
RFC 5512 [RFC5512] defines the BGP Encapsulation SAFI and the BGP Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute, which can be used to signal tunnelling over an single-Address Family IP core. This mechanism supports transport of MPLS (and other protocols) over Tunnels in an IP core (including an IPv6-only core). In this context, load-balancing can be provided as specified in RFC 5640 [RFC5640].
Gap: None.
RFC 6513 [RFC6513] defines the procedure to provide multicast service over MPLS VPN backbone for the customers. The procedure involves the below set of protocols:
RFC 6513 [RFC6513] explains the use of PIM as PE-CE protocol while Section 11.1.2 of RFC 6514 [RFC6514] explains the use of mLDP as PE-CE protocol.
The MCAST-VPN NLRI route-type format defined in RFC 6514 [RFC6514] is not sufficiently covering all scenarios when mLDP is used as PE-CE protocol. The issue is explained in section 2 of [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-mldp-nlri] along with new route-type that encodes the mLDP FEC in NLRI.
Further [I-D.ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-pe-ce] defines the use of BGP as PE-CE protocol.
Gap: None.
RFC 6513 [RFC6513] explains the use of the below tunnels:
Gap: Gaps in RSVP-TE P2MP LSP and mLDP P2MP and MP2MP LSP are covered in previous sections.
PIM Tree and Ingress Replication are out of the scope of this document.
Section 3.1 of RFC 6513 [RFC6513] explains the use of PIM as PE-PE protocol while RFC 6514 [RFC6514] explains the use of BGP as PE-PE protocol.
Gap: Any gaps in PIM or BGP as PE-PE Multicast Routing protocol are outside the scope of this document
MPLS-TP does not require IP (see section 2 of RFC 5921 [RFC5921]) and should not be affected by operation on an IPv6-only network. Therefore this is considered out of scope for this document.
Gap: None.
For MPLS LSPs, there are primarily three OAM mechanisms: Extended ICMP RFC 4884 [RFC4884] RFC 4950 [RFC4950], LSP Ping RFC 4379 [RFC4379], and BFD for MPLS LSPs RFC 5884 [RFC5884]. For MPLS Pseudowires, there is also Virtual Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) RFC 5085 [RFC5085] RFC 5885 [RFC5885]. All of these mechanisms work in pure IPv6 environments. The next subsections cover these in detail.
Gap: Major. RFC4379 needs to be updated for multipath IPv6. Additionally, there is potential for dropped messages in Extended ICMP and LSP ping due to IP version mismatches. It is important to note that this is a more generic problem with tunneling when IP address family mismatches exist, and is not specific to MPLS, so while MPLS will be affected, it will be difficult to fix this problem specifically for MPLS, rather than fixing the more generic problem.
Extended ICMP to support Multi-part messages is defined in RFC 4884 [RFC4884]. This extensibility is defined generally for both ICMPv4 and ICMPv6. The specific ICMP extensions for MPLS are defined in RFC 4950 [RFC4950]. ICMP Multi-part with MPLS extensions works for IPv4 and IPv6. However, the mechanisms described in RFC 4884 and 4950 may fail when tunneling IPv4 traffic over an LSP that is supported by IPv6-only infrastructure.
Assume the following:
Now assume that one of the hosts sends an IPv4 packet to the other. However, the packet’s TTL expires on an LSP interior router. According to RFC 3032 [RFC3032], the interior router should examine the IPv4 payload, format an ICMPv4 message, and send it (over the tunnel upon which the original packet arrived) to the egress LSP. In this case, however, the LSP interior router is not IPv4-aware. It cannot parse the original IPv4 datagram, nor can it send an IPv4 message. So, no ICMP message is delivered to the source. Some specific ICMP extensions, in particular ICMP Extensions for Interface and Next-Hop Identification RFC 5837 [RFC5837] restrict the address family of address information included in an Interface Information Object to the same one as the ICMP (see Section 4.5 of RFC 5837). While these extensions are not MPLS specific, they can be used with MPLS packets carrying IP datagrams. This has no implications for IPv6-only environments.
Gap: Major. IP version mismatches may cause dropped messages. However, as noted in the previous section, this problem is not specific to MPLS.
The LSP Ping mechanism defined in RFC 4379 [RFC4379] is specified to work with IPv6. Specifically, the Target FEC Stacks include both IPv4 and IPv6 versions of all FECs (see Section 3.2 of RFC 4379). The only exceptions are the Pseudowire FECs later specified for IPv6 in RFC 6829 [RFC6829].
The multipath information includes also IPv6 encodings (see Section 3.3.1 of RFC 4379).
Additionally, LSP Ping packets are UDP packets over both IPv4 and IPv6 (see Section 4.3 of RFC 4379). However, for IPv6, the destination IP address is a (randomly chosen) IPv6 address from the range 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104. That is, using an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address. This is a transitional mechanism that should not bleed into IPv6-only networks, as [I-D.itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful] explains. The issue is that the MPLS LSP Ping mechanism needs a range of loopback IP addresses to be used as destination addresses to exercise ECMPs, but the IPv6 address architecture specifies a single address (::1/128) for loopback. A mechanism to achieve this was proposed in [I-D.smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix].
Another gap is that the mechanisms described in RFC 4379 may fail when tunneling IPv4 traffic over an LSP that is supported by IPv6-only infrastructure.
Assume the following:
Packets will expire at LSP interior routers. According to RFC 4379, the interior router must parse the IPv4 Echo Request, and then, send an IPv4 Echo Reply. However, the LSP interior router is not IPv4-aware. It cannot parse the IPv4 Echo Request, nor can it send an IPv4 Echo Reply. So, no reply is sent.
The mechanism described in RFC 4379 also does not sufficiently explain the behaviour in certain IPv6-specific scenarios. For example, RFC 4379 defines the K value as 28 octets when Address Family is set to IPv6 Unnumbered, but it doesn't describe how to carry a 32 bit LSR Router ID in the 128 bit Downstream IP Address Field.
Gap: Major. LSP ping uses IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, IP version mismatches may cause dropped messages, unclear mapping from LSR Router ID to Downstream IP Address.
The BFD specification for MPLS LSPs RFC 5884 [RFC5884] is defined for IPv4 as well as IPv6 versions of MPLS FECs (see Section 3.1 of RFC 5884). Additionally the BFD packet is encapsulated over UDP and specified to run over both IPv4 and IPv6 (see Section 7 of RFC 5884).
Gap: None.
The OAM specifications for MPLS Pseudowires define usage for both IPv4 and IPv6. Specifically, VCCV RFC 5085 [RFC5085] can carry IPv4 or IPv6 OAM packets (see Section 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 of RFC 5085), and VCCV for BFD RFC 5885 [RFC5885] also defines an IPv6 encapsulation (see Section 3.2 of RFC 5885).
Gap: None.
As with MPLS-TP, MPLS-TP OAM RFC 6371 [RFC6371] is not dependent on IP or existing MPLS OAM functions, and should not be affected by operation on an IPv6-only network. Therefore, this is out of scope for this document.
Gap: None.
RFC3811 [RFC3811] defines the textual conventions for MPLS. These lack support for IPv6 in defining MplsExtendedTunnelId and MplsLsrIdentifier. These textual conventions are used in the MPLS TE MIB specification RFC3812 [RFC3812], GMPLS TE MIB specification RFC4802 [RFC4802] and Fast ReRoute (FRR) extension RFC6445 [RFC6445]. 3811bis [I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis] tries to resolve this gap by marking this textual convention as obsolete.
The other MIB specifications for LSR RFC3813 [RFC3813], LDP RFC3815 [RFC3815] and TE RFC4220 [RFC4220] have support for both IPv4 and IPv6.
Gap: Major. Work underway to update RFC3811, may also need to update RFC3812, RFC4802, and RFC6445, which depend on it.
This draft has reviewed a wide variety of MPLS features and protocols to determine their suitability for use on IPv6-only networks. While some parts of the MPLS suite will function properly without additional changes, gaps have been identified in others, which will need to be addressed with follow-on work. This section will summarize those gaps, along with pointers to any work-in-progress to address them.
Identifed gaps in MPLS for IPv6-only networks
| Item | Gap | Addressed in |
|---|---|---|
| LDP S.3.2.1 | LSP mapping, LDP identifiers, LDP discovery, LDP session establishment, next hop address and LDP TTL security | LDP-IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] |
| L2VPN S.3.3.1 | RFC 6074 [RFC6074] discovery, signaling | TBD |
| L3VPN S.3.3.2 | RFC 4364 [RFC4364] BGP next-hop, define method for 4PE/4VPE | TBD |
| OAM S.3.4 | RFC 4379 [RFC4379] no IPv6 multipath support, possible dropped messages in IP version mismatch | TBD |
| MIBs S.3.5 | RFC 3811 [RFC3811] no IPv6 textual convention | 3811bis [I-D.manral-mpls-rfc3811bis] |
The authors wish to thank Andrew Yourtchenko and Loa Andersson for a detailed review, as well as Brian Haberman, Joel Jaeggli, and Adrian Farrell for their comments.
The following people have contributed text to this draft:
This memo includes no request to IANA.
Changing the address family used for MPLS network operation does not fundamentally alter the security considerations currently extant in any of the specifics of the protocol or its features.
*RFC EDITOR PLEASE REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING*
This will track which author volunteered for which section(s):
OAM - Ron Bonica, Carlos Pignataro
LDP/mLDP (multicast) - Kamran Raza
L2VPN - Rajiv Asati, Vishwas Manral, Rajiv Papneja
L3VPN - Rajiv Asati, Vishwas Manral, Rajiv Papneja
PCE - Dhruv Dhody, Rajiv Papneja
Editors- Wes George(primary), Vishwas Manral, Rajiv Asati