Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation
draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation
MPLS Working Group W. Cheng, Ed.
Internet-Draft China Mobile
Intended status: Standards Track X. Min, Ed.
Expires: 30 August 2024 ZTE Corp.
T. Zhou
Huawei
J. Dai
FiberHome
Y. Peleg
Broadcom
27 February 2024
Encapsulation For MPLS Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking
Method
draft-ietf-mpls-inband-pm-encapsulation-10
Abstract
This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance
measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based
packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 August 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.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
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 Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.1. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in a label stack . . 5
3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation . . . 8
4. Procedures of Flow-ID allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. FLC and FRLD Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Fiberhome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Huawei Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.3. ZTE Corp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.4. China Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
[RFC9341] describes a performance measurement method, which can be
used to measure packet loss, delay, and jitter on live traffic.
Since this method is based on marking consecutive batches of packets,
it's referred to as Alternate-Marking Method. [RFC8372] describes
the desired capabilities for MPLS flow identification, intended for
in-band performance monitoring of MPLS flows.
This document defines the encapsulation for MPLS performance
measurement with alternate marking method, which performs flow-based
packet loss, delay, and jitter measurements on MPLS live traffic.
The encapsulation defined in this document supports performance
monitoring at the intermediate nodes, as well as MPLS flow
identification at both transport and service layers.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
This document employs an encapsulation method, other than Synonymous
Flow Label (SFL), to achieve MPLS flow identification. The method
described in this document is complementary to the SFL method
[RFC8957] [I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-control], the former mainly aims at hop-
by-hop processing and the latter mainly aims at edge-to-edge
processing. Different sets of MPLS flows may use different methods.
The method described in this document is also complementary to the
In-situ OAM method [RFC9197] [RFC9326], the former doesn't introduce
any new header whereas the latter introduces a new In-situ OAM
header. Furthermore, the former requires the network nodes to
collect the data used for performance measurement, while the latter
requires the network nodes to collect the data used for operational
and telemetry information collection. An MPLS flow may apply both of
the two methods concurrently.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
1.1.1. Abbreviations
ACL: Access Control List
BoS: Bottom of Stack
cSPL: Composite Special Purpose Label
ECMP: Equal-Cost Multipath
ELC: Entropy Label Capability
ERLD: Entropy Readable Label Depth
eSPL: Extended Special Purpose Label
FL: Flow-ID Label
FLC: Flow-ID Label Capability
FLI: Flow-ID Label Indicator
FRLD: Flow-ID Readable Label Depth
LSP: Label Switched Path
MPLS: Multi-Protocol Label Switching
NMS: Network Management System
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
PHP: Penultimate Hop Popping
PM: Performance Measurement
PW: PseudoWire
SFL: Synonymous Flow Label
SID: Segment ID
SR: Segment Routing
TC: Traffic Class
TTL: Time to Live
VC: Virtual Channel
VPN: Virtual Private Network
XL: Extension Label
1.1.2. Requirements Language
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 BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS
Flow-based MPLS performance measurement encapsulation with alternate
marking method has the following format:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extension Label (15) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow-ID Label Indicator (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Flow-ID Label |L|D|T|S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Flow-based PM Encapsulation in MPLS
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
The Flow-ID Label Indicator (FLI) is an Extended Special Purpose
Label (eSPL), which is combined with the Extension Label (XL, value
15) to form a Composite Special Purpose Label (cSPL), as defined in
[RFC9017]. The FLI is defined in this document as value TBA1.
The Traffic Class (TC) and Time To Live (TTL) [RFC3032] for the XL
and FLI SHOULD follow the same field values of that label immediately
preceding the XL. Otherwise, the TC and TTL for the XL and FLI MAY
be different values if it is known that the XL will not be exposed as
the top label at any point along the LSP. The Bottom of Stack (BoS)
bit [RFC3032] for the XL and FLI MUST be zero.
The Flow-ID Label (FL) is used as an MPLS flow identification
[RFC8372], its value MUST be unique within the administrative domain.
Flow-ID values can be allocated by an external NMS/controller, based
on measurement object instance such as LSP or PW. There is a one-to-
one mapping between Flow-ID and flow. The specific method on how to
allocate the Flow-ID values is described in Section 4.
The FL can be placed at either the bottom or the middle of the MPLS
label stack, and the FL MAY appear multiple times in a label stack.
Section 2.1 of this document provides several examples to illustrate
how to apply FL in a label stack. The TTL for the FL MUST be zero to
ensure that it is not used inadvertently for forwarding. The BoS bit
for the FL depends on whether the FL is placed at the bottom of the
MPLS label stack.
Besides the flow identification, a color-marking field is also
necessary for alternate marking method. To achieve the purpose of
coloring the MPLS traffic, as well as the distinction between hop-by-
hop measurement and edge-to-edge measurement, the TC for the FL is
defined as follows:
* L(oss) bit is used for coloring the MPLS packets for loss
measurement.
* D(elay) bit is used for coloring the MPLS packets for delay/jitter
measurement.
* T(ype) bit is used to indicate the measurement type. When T bit
is set to 1, that means edge-to-edge performance measurement.
When T bit is set to 0, that means hop-by-hop performance
measurement.
2.1. Examples for Applying Flow-ID Label in a label stack
Three examples on different layout of Flow-ID label (4 octets) are
illustrated as follows. Note that more examples may exist.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
(1) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to MPLS transport.
+----------------------+
| LSP |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Extension | |
| Label | |
+----------------------+ |--- cSPL
| Flow-ID Label | |
| Indicator | |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Flow-ID |
| Label |
+----------------------+
| Application |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| |
| Payload |
| |
+----------------------+
Figure 2: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS transport
Note that here if the penultimate hop popping (PHP) is in use, the
PHP LSR that recognizes the cSPL MAY choose not to pop the cSPL and
the following Flow-ID label, otherwise the egress LSR would be
excluded from the performance measurement.
Also note that in other examples of applying Flow-ID to MPLS
transport, one LSP label can be substituted by multiple SID labels in
the case of using SR Policy, and the combination of cSPL and Flow-ID
label can be placed between SID labels, as specified in Section 5.
(2) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to MPLS service.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
+----------------------+
| LSP |
| Label |
+----------------------+
| Application |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Extension | |
| Label | |
+----------------------+ |--- cSPL
| Flow-ID Label | |
| Indicator | |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Flow-ID |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| |
| Payload |
| |
+----------------------+
Figure 3: Applying Flow-ID to MPLS service
Note that here the application label can be MPLS PW label, MPLS
Ethernet VPN label or MPLS IP VPN label, and it's also called VC
label as defined in [RFC4026].
(3) Layout of Flow-ID label when applied to both MPLS transport and
MPLS service.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
+----------------------+
| LSP |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Extension | |
| Label | |
+----------------------+ |--- cSPL
| Flow-ID Label | |
| Indicator | |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Flow-ID |
| Label |
+----------------------+
| Application |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Extension | |
| Label | |
+----------------------+ |--- cSPL
| Flow-ID Label | |
| Indicator | |
+----------------------+ <--+
| Flow-ID |
| Label |
+----------------------+ <= Bottom of stack
| |
| Payload |
| |
+----------------------+
Figure 4: Applying Flow-ID to both MPLS transport and MPLS service
Note that for this example the two Flow-ID values appearing in a
label stack MUST be different, that is to say, the Flow-ID label
applied to MPLS transport and the Flow-ID label applied to MPLS
service share the same value space. Also note that the two Flow-ID
label values are independent from each other, e.g., two packets can
belong to the same VPN flow but two different LSP flows, or two
packets can belong to two different VPN flows but the same LSP flow.
3. Procedures of Encapsulation, Look-up and Decapsulation
The procedures for Flow-ID label encapsulation, look-up and
decapsulation are summarized as follows:
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
* The MPLS ingress node [RFC3031] inserts the XL, FLI and FL into
the MPLS label stack. At the same time, the ingress node sets the
Flow-ID value, the two color-marking bits and the T bit, as
defined in Section 2.
* If the edge-to-edge measurement is applied, i.e., the T bit is set
to 1, then only the MPLS egress node [RFC3031] is the processing
node. The processing node looks up the FL with the help of the XL
and FLI, and exports the collected data, such as the Flow-ID,
block counters and timestamps, to an external NMS/controller,
referring to the alternate marking method. Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment] describes protocols for
collected data export, and the details on how to export the
collected data are outside the scope of this document. Note that
while looking up the Flow-ID label, the transit node needs to
perform some deep packet inspection beyond the label (at the top
of the label stack) used to take forwarding decisions.
* The processing node may also pop the XL, FLI and FL from the MPLS
label stack. The egress node pops the whole MPLS label stack, and
this document doesn't introduce any new process to the
decapsulated packet.
4. Procedures of Flow-ID allocation
There are at least two ways of allocating Flow-ID, one way is to
allocate Flow-ID by manual trigger from the network operator, and the
other way is to allocate Flow-ID by automatic trigger from the
ingress node. Details are as follows:
* In the case of manual trigger, the network operator would manually
input the characteristics (e.g. IP five tuples and IP DSCP) of
the measured flow, then the NMS/controller would generate one or
two Flow-IDs based on the input from the network operator, and
provision the ingress node with the characteristics of the
measured flow and the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s).
* In the case of automatic trigger, the ingress node would identify
the flow entering the measured path, export the characteristics of
the identified flow to the NMS/controller by IPFIX [RFC7011], then
the NMS/controller would generate one or two Flow-IDs based on the
characteristics exported from the ingress node, and provision the
ingress node with the characteristics of the identified flow and
the corresponding allocated Flow-ID(s).
The policy pre-configured at the NMS/controller decides whether one
Flow-ID or two Flow-IDs would be generated. If the performance
measurement on MPLS service is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
MPLS service would be generated; If the performance measurement on
MPLS transport is enabled, then one Flow-ID applied to MPLS transport
would be generated; If both of them are enabled, then two Flow-IDs
respectively applied to MPLS service and MPLS transport would be
generated, in this case, the transit node needs to look up both of
the two Flow-IDs by default, and that can be changed by configuration
to, e.g., look up only the Flow-ID applied to MPLS transport.
Whether using the above-mentioned two ways or other ways to allocate
Flow-ID, the NMS/controller MUST guarantee every generated Flow-ID is
unique within the administrative domain and MUST NOT have a value in
the reserved label space (0-15) [RFC3032].
5. FLC and FRLD Considerations
Analogous to the Entropy Label Capability (ELC) defined in Section 5
of [RFC6790] and the Entropy Readable Label Depth (ERLD) defined in
Section 4 of [RFC8662], the Flow-ID Label Capability (FLC) and the
Flow-ID Readable Label Depth (FRLD) are defined in this document.
Both FLC and FRLD have the similar semantics with the ELC and ERLD to
a router, except that the Flow-ID is used in its flow identification
function while the Entropy is used in its load-balancing function.
The ingress node MUST insert each FL at an appropriate depth, which
ensures the node to which the FL is exposed has the FLC. The ingress
node SHOULD insert each FL within an appropriate FRLD, which is the
minimum FRLD of all the on-path nodes that need to read and use the
FL in question. How the ingress node knows the FLC and FRLD of all
the on-path nodes is outside the scope of this document, whereas
[I-D.xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-frld] provides a method to achieve that.
When the SR paths are used for transport, the label stack grows as
the number of on-path segments increases, if the number of on-path
segments is high, that may become a challenge for the FL to be placed
within an appropriate FRLD. In order to overcome this potential
challenge, an implementation MAY provide flexibility to the ingress
node to place FL between SID labels, i.e., multiple identical FLs at
different depths MAY be interleaved with SID labels, when that
happens a sophisticated network planning may be needed and it's
beyond the scope of this document.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
6. Equal-Cost Multipath Considerations
Analogous to what's described in Section 5 of [RFC8957], under
conditions of Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP), the introduction of the FL
may lead to the same problem as caused by the SFL, and the two
solutions proposed for SFL would also apply here. Specifically,
adding FL to an existing flow may cause that flow to take a different
path, if that's a problem the operator expects to resolve, then the
operator can choose to apply entropy labels [RFC6790] or add FL to
all flows.
7. Security Considerations
This document introduces the performance measurement domain that is
the scope of a Flow-ID label. The performance measurement domain
normally has the same boundaries as the administrative domain, and
the method on how to achieve multi-domain performance measurement
with the same Flow-ID label is outside the scope of this document.
The Flow-ID Label Indicator and Flow-ID label MUST NOT be signaled
and distributed outside one performance measurement domain. Improper
configuration so the Flow-ID label is passed from one measurement
domain to another would result in Flow-ID conflicts.
To prevent packets carrying Flow-ID label from leaking from one
domain to another, the domain boundary nodes SHOULD deploy some
policies (e.g., ACL) to filter out the packets. Specifically, in the
sending edge, the domain boundary node SHOULD filter out the packets
that carry the Flow-ID Label Indicator and are sent to other domain;
in the receiving edge, the domain boundary node SHOULD drop the
packets that carry the Flow-ID Label Indicator and are from other
domains.
8. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to [RFC7942].
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
8.1. Fiberhome
* Organization: Fiberhome Corporation.
* Implementation: Fiberhome R82*, R800*, S680*, S780* series routers
are running the common-building block 'Flow-based PM Encapsulation
in MPLS'.
* Maturity Level: Product
* Coverage: Partial,section 2 and example (2) of section 2.1.
* Version: Draft-08
* Licensing: N/A
* Implementation experience: Nothing specific.
* Contact: djy@fiberhome.com
* Last updated: December 25, 2023
8.2. Huawei Technologies
* Organization: Huawei Technologies.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
* Implementation: Huawei ATN8XX, ATN910C, ATN980B, CX600-M2, NE40E,
ME60-X1X2, ME60-X3X8X16 Routers running VRPV800R021C00 or above.
Huawei NCE-IP Controller running V1R21C00 or above.
* Maturity Level: Product
* Coverage: Partial,section 2 and example (2) of section 2.1.
* Version: Draft-08
* Licensing: N/A
* Implementation experience: Nothing specific.
* Contact: zhoutianran@huawei.com
* Last updated: January 10, 2024
8.3. ZTE Corp
* Organization: ZTE Corporation.
* Implementation: ZTE ZXCTN 6500-32 routers running V5.00.20 or
above. ZTE ZXCTN 6170H routers running V5.00.30.20 or above. ZTE
ElasticNet UME Controller running V16.22.20 or above.
* Maturity Level: Product
* Coverage: Partial,section 2 and example (2) of section 2.1.
* Version: Draft-08
* Licensing: N/A
* Implementation experience: Nothing specific.
* Contact: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
* Last updated: January 22, 2024
8.4. China Mobile
China Mobile reported that they have conducted interconnection tests
with multiple vendors according to this draft. The tests result have
proven that the solutions from multiple vendors are mature and ready
for large scale deployment.This report was last updated on January
10, 2024.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
9. IANA Considerations
In the Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values registry, a new Extended
Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for the Flow-ID Label Indicator is
requested from IANA as follows:
+==========================+===============+============+===========+
| Extended Special-Purpose | Description | Semantics | Reference |
| MPLS Label Value | | Definition | |
+==========================+===============+============+===========+
| TBA1 | Flow-ID | Section 2 | This |
| | Label | | Document |
| | Indicator | | |
+--------------------------+---------------+------------+-----------+
Table 1: New Extended Special-Purpose MPLS Label Value for Flow-
ID Label Indicator
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Loa Andersson, Tarek Saad,
Stewart Bryant, Rakesh Gandhi, Greg Mirsky, Aihua Liu, Shuangping
Zhan, Ming Ke, Wei He, Ximing Dong, and Darren Dukes for their
careful review and very helpful comments.
The authors would like to acknowledge Italo Busi and Chandrasekar
Ramachandran for their insightful MPLS-RT review and very helpful
comments.
11. Contributors
Minxue Wang
China Mobile
Email: wangminxue@chinamobile.com
Wen Ye
China Mobile
Email: yewen@chinamobile.com
12. References
12.1. 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>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9017] Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-
Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017>.
[RFC9341] Fioccola, G., Ed., Cociglio, M., Mirsky, G., Mizrahi, T.,
and T. Zhou, "Alternate-Marking Method", RFC 9341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9341, December 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9341>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-alt-mark-deployment]
Fioccola, G., Zhou, T., Graf, T., Nilo, M., and L. Zhang,
"Alternate Marking Deployment Framework", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-alt-mark-
deployment-00, 3 January 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
alt-mark-deployment-00>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-sfl-control]
Bryant, S., Swallow, G., and S. Sivabalan, "A Simple
Control Protocol for MPLS SFLs", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-sfl-control-04, 6 November
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
mpls-sfl-control-04>.
[I-D.xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-frld]
Min, X., Zhang, Z., and W. Cheng, "Signaling Flow-ID Label
Capability and Flow-ID Readable Label Depth", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-frld-04,
28 January 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-xzc-lsr-mpls-flc-frld-04>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
[RFC4026] Andersson, L. and T. Madsen, "Provider Provisioned Virtual
Private Network (VPN) Terminology", RFC 4026,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4026, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4026>.
[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>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7011>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8372] Bryant, S., Pignataro, C., Chen, M., Li, Z., and G.
Mirsky, "MPLS Flow Identification Considerations",
RFC 8372, DOI 10.17487/RFC8372, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8372>.
[RFC8662] Kini, S., Kompella, K., Sivabalan, S., Litkowski, S.,
Shakir, R., and J. Tantsura, "Entropy Label for Source
Packet Routing in Networking (SPRING) Tunnels", RFC 8662,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8662, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8662>.
[RFC8957] Bryant, S., Chen, M., Swallow, G., Sivabalan, S., and G.
Mirsky, "Synonymous Flow Label Framework", RFC 8957,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8957, January 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8957>.
[RFC9197] Brockners, F., Ed., Bhandari, S., Ed., and T. Mizrahi,
Ed., "Data Fields for In Situ Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (IOAM)", RFC 9197, DOI 10.17487/RFC9197,
May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9197>.
[RFC9326] Song, H., Gafni, B., Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., and T.
Mizrahi, "In Situ Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (IOAM) Direct Exporting", RFC 9326,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9326, November 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9326>.
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Encap for MPLS PM with AMM February 2024
Authors' Addresses
Weiqiang Cheng (editor)
China Mobile
Beijing
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiao Min (editor)
ZTE Corp.
Nanjing
China
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Jinyou Dai
FiberHome
Wuhan
China
Email: djy@fiberhome.com
Yoav Peleg
Broadcom
United States of America
Email: yoav.peleg@broadcom.com
Cheng, et al. Expires 30 August 2024 [Page 17]
