Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble
draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble
MPLS Working Group K. Kompella
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Updates: 4928 (if approved) S. Bryant
Intended status: Standards Track University of Surrey 5GIC
Expires: 1 September 2024 M. Bocci
Nokia
G. Mirsky, Ed.
Ericsson
L. Andersson
J. Dong
Huawei Technologies
29 February 2024
IANA Registry for the First Nibble Following a Label Stack
draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-04
Abstract
The goal of this memo is to create a new IANA registry (called the
Post-stack First Nibble registry) for the first nibble (4-bit field)
immediately following an MPLS label stack. The memo offers a
rationale for such a registry, describes how the registry should be
managed, and provides some initial entries. Furthermore, this memo
sets out some documentation requirements for registering new values.
Finally, it provides some recommendations that make processing MPLS
packets easier and more robust.
The relationship between the IANA IP Version Numbers (RFC 2780) and
the Post-stack First Nibble registry is described in this document.
This memo, if published, would update RFC 4928.
Status of This Memo
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 https://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."
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
This Internet-Draft will expire on 1 September 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. Why Look at the First Nibble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1. Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Updates of RFC 4928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3. Why Create a Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4. The Relationship between IANA IP Version Numbers RFC2780
and Post-stack First Nibble Registries . . . . . . . . . 10
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. The Post-stack First Nibble Registry . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.1. Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
An MPLS packet consists of a label stack, an optional "post-stack
header" (PSH) and an optional embedded packet (in that order). By
PSH, we mean existing artifacts such as Control Words, BIER headers
and the like, as well as new types of PSH being discussed by the MPLS
Working Group. However, in the data plane, there are scant clues
regarding the PSH, and no clue as to the type of embedded packet;
this information is communicated via other means, such as the routing
protocols that signal the labels in the stack. Nonetheless, in order
to better handle an MPLS packet in the data plane, it is common
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
practice for network equipment to "guess" the type of embedded
packet. Such equipment may also need to process the PSH. Both of
these require parsing the data after the label stack. To do this,
the "first nibble" (the top four bits of the first octet following
the label stack) is often used. Although some existing network
devices may use such a method, it needs to be stressed that the
correct interpretation of the Post-stack First Nibble (PFN) in a PSH
can be made only in the context of the Label Stack Element (LSE) or
group of LSEs in the preceding label stack that characterize the type
of the PSH, and that any attempt to rely on the value in any other
context is unreliable.
The semantics and usage of the first nibble are not well documented,
nor are the assignments of values. This memo serves four purposes:
* To document the assignments already made.
* To provide straightforward documentation of future assignments
through the creation of a "Post-stack First Nibble registry".
* Provide a method for tracking usage by requiring more consistent
documentation.
* To stress the importance that any MPLS packet not carrying plain
IPv4 or IPv6 packets MUST contain a PSH.
This memo introduces a requirement and a recommendation, the first
building on the Section 2.1.1; the second deprecating the use of the
heuristic in Section 2.1.1.1. The intent of both of these is that
legacy routers continue to operate as they have, with no new problems
introduced as a result of this memo. However, new implementations
SHOULD follow these recommendations for a more robust operation.
1.1. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
MPLS packet: one whose Layer 2 header declares the type to be MPLS.
For Ethernet, that means the Ethertype is 0x8847 or 0x8848.
Label Stack: (of an MPLS packet) all labels (four-octet fields)
after the Layer 2 header, up to and including the label with the
BoS bit set ([RFC3032]).
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
Post-stack First Nibble (PFN): the most significant four bits of the
first octet following the label stack.
MPLS Payload: all data after the label stack, including the PFN, an
optional post-stack header, and the embedded packet.
Post-stack Header (PSH): optional field of interest to the egress
LSR (and possibly to transit LSRs). Examples include a control
word or an associated channel. The PSH MUST indicate its length,
so that a parser knows where the embedded packet starts.
Embedded Packet: all octets beyond the PSH (if any). That could be
an IPv4 or IPv6 packet , an Ethernet packet (for VPLS ([RFC4761],
[RFC4762]) or EVPN [RFC7432]), or some other type of Layer 2 frame
[RFC4446].
Deprecation: regardless of how the deprecation is understood in
other IETF documents, the interpretation in this document is that
if a practice has been deprecated, that practice should not be
included in the new implementations or deployed in deployments.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
X | Layer 2 Header | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
TC S TTL
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
Y | Label-1 | TC |0| TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label-2 | TC |0| TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | TC |0| TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label-n | TC |1| TTL | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
Figure 1: Example of an MPLS Packet With Label Stack
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
A | (PFN) | IP packet | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| end of IP packet | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
B | (PFN) | non-IP packet | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| end of non-IP packet | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
C | (PFN) | PSH | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PSH | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| end of PSH | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| embedded packet | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
Figure 2
Figure 1 shows an MPLS packet with Layer 2 header X and a label stack
Y ending with Label-n. Then, there are three examples of an MPLS
payload. The complete MPLS packet thus would consist of [X Y A], or
[X Y B], or [X Y C].
A. The first payload is a bare IP packet, i.e., no PSH. The PFN in
this case overlaps with the IP version number.
B. The next payload is a bare non-IP packet; again, no PSH. The PFN
here is the first nibble of the payload, whatever it happens to be.
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
C. The last example is an MPLS Payload that starts with a PSH
followed by the embedded packet. Here, the embedded packet could be
IP or non-IP.
1.2. Abbreviations
LSR: Label Switching Router
LSE: Label Stack Element
PSH: Post-Stack Header
PFN: Post-stack First Nibble
2. Rationale
2.1. Why Look at the First Nibble
An MPLS packet can contain many types of embedded packets. The most
common types are:
1. An IPv4 packet (whose IP header has version number 4).
2. An IPv6 packet (whose IP header has version number 6).
3. A Layer 2 Ethernet frame (i.e., not including the Preamble or the
Start frame delimiter), starting with the destination MAC
address.
Many other packet types are possible, and in principle, any Layer 2
embedded packet is permissible; indeed, in the past, PPP, Frame Relay
and ATM packets were reasonably common.
In addition, there may be a PSH ahead of the embedded packet, and it
needs to be parsed. The PFN is currently used for both of these
purposes.
2.1.1. Load Balancing
There are four common ways to load balance an MPLS packet:
1. One can use the top label alone.
2. One can do better by using all of the (non-SPL) labels in the
stack.
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
3. One can do even better by "divining" the type of embedded packet,
and using fields from the guessed header. The ramifications of
using this load-balancing technique are discussed in detail in
Section 2.2.
4. One can do best by using either an Entropy Label [RFC6790] or a
FAT Pseudowire Label [RFC6391]; see Section 2.2.)
Load balancing based on just the top label means that all packets
with that top label will go the same way -- this is far from ideal.
Load balancing based on the entire label stack (not including SPLs)
is better, but it may still be uneven. If, however, the embedded
packet is an IP packet, then the combination of (<source IP address>,
<dest IP address>, <transport protocol>, <source port>, and <dest
port>) from the IP header of the embedded packet forms an excellent
basis for load-balancing. This is what is typically used for load
balancing IP packets.
An MPLS packet doesn't, however, carry a payload type identifier.
There is a simple (but dangerous) heuristic that is commonly used to
guess the type of the embedded packet. The first nibble, i.e., the
four most significant bits of the first octet, of an IP header
contains the IP version number. That, in turn, indicates where to
find the relevant fields for load-balancing. The heuristic goes
roughly as follows:
2.1.1.1. Heuristic for Load Balancing
1. If the PFN is 0x4 (0100b), treat the payload as an IPv4 packet,
and find the relevant fields for load-balancing on that basis.
2. If the PFN is 0x6 (0110b), treat the payload as an IPv6 packet,
and find the relevant fields for load-balancing on that basis.
3. If the PFN is anything else, the MPLS payload is not an IP
packet; fall back to load-balancing using the label stack.
This heuristic has been implemented in many (legacy) routers, and
performs well in the case of Figure 2, A. However, this heuristic
can work very badly for Figure 2, B. For example, if payload B is an
Ethernet frame, then the PFN is the first nibble of the OUI of the
destination MAC address, which can be 0x4 or 0x6, and if so would
lead to very bad load-balancing. This behavior can happen to other
types of non-IP payloads as well.
That, in turn, led to the idea of inserting a PSH (e.g., a pseudowire
control word [RFC4385], a DetNet control word [RFC8964] or a BIER
header [RFC8296]) where the PFN is not 0x4 or 0x6, to explicitly
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
prevent forwarding engines from confusing the MPLS payload with an IP
packet. [RFC8469] recommends the use of a control word when the
embedded packet is an Ethernet frame. RFC 8469 was published at the
request of the operator community and the IEEE RAC as a result of
operational difficulties with pseudowires that did not contain the
control word.
It is RECOMMENDED that where load-balancing of MPLS packets is
desired, the load-balancing mechanism uses the value of a dedicated
label, for example, either an Entropy Label [RFC6790] or a FAT
Pseudowire Label [RFC6391]. Furthermore, the heuristic of guessing
the type of the embedded packet, as discussed above, SHOULD NOT be
used.
A consequence of the latter approach is that, while legacy routers
may look for an PFN of 0x4 [RFC0791] or 0x6 [RFC8200], no router will
look for a PFN of 0x7 (or whatever the next IP version number will
be) for load-balancing purposes. This means that the values 0x4 and
0x6 are used to (sometimes incorrectly) identify IPv4 and IPv6
packets, but no other First Nibble values will be used to identify IP
packets.
This also expands the PFN Registry to all 16 possible values, not
just 0x0 and 0x1.
2.2. Updates of RFC 4928
Paragraph 3 in Section 3 of RFC 4928 [RFC4928] states that:
It is REQUIRED, however, that applications depend upon in-order
packet delivery restrict the first nibble values to 0x0 and 0x1.
This will ensure that their traffic flows will not be affected if
some future routing equipment does similar snooping on some future
version(s) of IP.
The text in RFC 4928 [RFC4928] concerning the first nibble after the
MPLS Label Stack has been updated by [I-D.ietf-mpls-1stnibble] and
the heuristic for snooping this nibble has been deprecated. RFC 4928
is now updated as follows:
Network equipment that complies with [I-D.ietf-mpls-1stnibble] MUST
use a PSH (Post-Stack Header) with a PFN (Post-stack First Nibble)
value that is neither 0x4 nor 0x6 in all cases when the MPLS payload
is not an IP packet.
The recommendation (see Section 2.1.1.1) replaces the paragraph 4 in
Section 3 of RFC 4928 [RFC4928] as follows:
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
OLD TEXT:
This behavior implies that if in the future an IP version is defined
with a version number of 0x0 or 0x1, then equipment complying with
this BCP would be unable to look past one or more MPLS headers, and
load-split traffic from a single LSP across multiple paths based on a
hash of specific fields in the IPv0 or IPv1 headers. That is, IP
traffic employing these version numbers would be safe from
disturbances caused by inappropriate load-splitting, but would also
not be able to get the performance benefits.
NEW TEXT:
[I-D.ietf-mpls-1stnibble] deprecated the practice of deducing the
payload type to avoid inaccurate load balancing based on the PFN
value. This means that older implementations and deployments can
continue to use that heuristic, while it must not be part of new
implementations or deployments. The deprecation also means that
concerns about load balancing for future IP versions with a version
number of 0x0 or 0x1 are now moot.
A new document is to be published to obsolete MPLS encapsulations
without PSH of non-IP payload when sufficient evidence exists that
there are no marketed or deployed implementations using the heuristic
practice.
END
Furthermore, the following text is appended to Section 1.1 of RFC
4928 [RFC4928]:
PSH: Post-Stack Header
PFN: Post-stack First Nibble
2.3. Why Create a Registry
The MPLS WG is currently engaged in updating the MPLS architecture;
part of this work may involve the use of PSHs. That might be more
challenging if PSH values are allocated on an ad hoc basis, and their
parsing and semantics are ill-specified. Consider that the PFN value
of 0x0 has two different formats, depending on whether the PSH is a
pseudowire control word or a DetNet control word; disambiguation
requires the context of the service label. This was a considered
decision; documenting this would be helpful to future implementors.
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
With a registry, PSHs become easier to parse; not needing means
outside the data plane to interpret them correctly; and their
semantics and usage are documented. (Thank you, IANA!)
2.4. The Relationship between IANA IP Version Numbers [RFC2780] and
Post-stack First Nibble Registries
The use of the PFN stemmed from the desire to heuristically identify
IP packets for load-balancing purposes. It was then discovered that
non-IP packets, misidentified as IP when the heuristic failed, were
being badly load balanced, leading to [RFC4928]. This situation may
confuse some as to the relationship between the Post-stack First
Nibble Registry and the IP Version Numbers registry. These
registries are quite different:
1. The IP Version Numbers registry's explicit purpose is to track IP
version numbers in an IP header.
2. The Post-stack First Nibble registry's purpose is to track PSH
types.
The only intersection points between the two registries is for values
0x4 and 0x6 (for backward compatibility). There is no need to track
future IP version number allocations in the Post-stack First Nibble
registry.
3. IANA Considerations
3.1. The Post-stack First Nibble Registry
This memo recommends the creation of an IANA registry called "The
Post-stack First Nibble Registry" with the following values:
+=======================================================================+
| Code points allocated for BIER |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | PSH Type | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x5 | BIER header - Normal traffic | RFC 8296 |
+=======================================================================+
| Code points allocated for DETNET |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | PSH Type | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x0 | DetNet Control Word | RFC 8964 |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x1 | DetNet Associated Channel | draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam |
+=======================================================================+
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
| Code points allocated for Network Service Header (NSH) |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | PSH Type | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x0 | NSH Base Header, Payload | RFC 8300 |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x2 | NSH Base Header, OAM | RFC 8300 |
+=======================================================================+
| Code points allocated for Pseudowires (PW) |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | PSH Type | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x0 | PW Control Word | RFC 4385 |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x1 | PW Associated Channel | RFC 4385 |
+=======================================================================+
| Code points allocated for the MPLS Generic Associated Channel |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | PSH Type | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x1 | MPLS G-ACh | RFC 5586 |
+=======================================================================+
| Reserved Code Points, not to be allocated |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | Usage | Reference |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x4 | IPv4 Protocol Number | RFC 791 |
+-------+---------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 0x6 | IPv6 Protocol Number | RFC 8200 |
+=======================================================================+
| Unassigned Code Points |
+=======================================================================+
| Value | PSH Type | Reference |
+--------+---------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 0x3 | - | - |
+--------+---------------------------------+----------------------------+
| 0x7-0xF| - | - |
+--------+---------------------------------+----------------------------+
Figure 3: The Post-stack First Nibble Values
3.1.1. Allocation Policy
All new values registered here MUST use the Standards Action policy
[RFC8126].
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
4. Security Considerations
This document proposes a new IANA registry and does not raise any
security concerns or issues in addition to ones common to networking
and those specific to MPLS networks.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[RFC4928] Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
[RFC8469] Bryant, S., Malis, A., and I. Bagdonas, "Recommendation to
Use the Ethernet Control Word", RFC 8469,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8469, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8469>.
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
[RFC8300] Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
"Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.
[RFC8296] Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8964] Varga, B., Ed., Farkas, J., Berger, L., Malis, A., Bryant,
S., and J. Korhonen, "Deterministic Networking (DetNet)
Data Plane: MPLS", RFC 8964, DOI 10.17487/RFC8964, January
2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8964>.
[RFC6391] Bryant, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Drafz, U., Kompella, V.,
Regan, J., and S. Amante, "Flow-Aware Transport of
Pseudowires over an MPLS Packet Switched Network",
RFC 6391, DOI 10.17487/RFC6391, November 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6391>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2780>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-1stnibble]
Kompella, K., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., Mirsky, G.,
Andersson, L., and J. Dong, "IANA Registry for the First
Nibble Following a Label Stack", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-1stnibble-03, 9 February
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
mpls-1stnibble-03>.
5.2. Informative References
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
[RFC4761] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and
Signaling", RFC 4761, DOI 10.17487/RFC4761, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4761>.
[RFC7432] Sajassi, A., Ed., Aggarwal, R., Bitar, N., Isaac, A.,
Uttaro, J., Drake, J., and W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based
Ethernet VPN", RFC 7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[RFC4446] Martini, L., "IANA Allocations for Pseudowire Edge to Edge
Emulation (PWE3)", BCP 116, RFC 4446,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4446, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4446>.
[RFC4762] Lasserre, M., Ed. and V. Kompella, Ed., "Virtual Private
LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)
Signaling", RFC 4762, DOI 10.17487/RFC4762, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4762>.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, 94089
United States of America
Email: kireeti.ietf@gmail.com
Stewart Bryant
University of Surrey 5GIC
Email: sb@stewartbryant.com
Matthew Bocci
Nokia
Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com
Greg Mirsky (editor)
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com
Loa Andersson
Huawei Technologies
Email: loa@pi.nu
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft 1st nibble February 2024
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing, 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Kompella, et al. Expires 1 September 2024 [Page 15]
