Internet DRAFT - draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming
draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming
Network Working Group Z. Li
Internet-Draft S. Zhuang
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Expires: May 3, 2017 S. Lu
Tencent
October 30, 2016
BGP Extensions for Service-Oriented MPLS Path Programming (MPP)
draft-li-idr-mpls-path-programming-04
Abstract
Service-oriented MPLS programming (SoMPP) is to provide customized
service process based on flexible label combinations. BGP will play
an important role for MPLS path programming to download programmed
MPLS path and map the service path to the transport path. This
document defines BGP extensions to support service-oriented MPLS path
programming.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 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 May 3, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architecture and Usecases of SoMPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Usecases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Deterministic ECMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.2. Centralized Mapping of Service to Tunnels . . . . . . 5
4. Advertising Label Stacks in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Download of MPLS Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Mapping Traffic to MPLS Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Download of Mapping of Service Path to Transport Path . . . . 7
5.1. Specify Tunnel Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Specify Specific Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Route Flag Extended Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Destination Node Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The label stack capability of MPLS would have been utilized well to
implement flexible path programming to satisfy all kinds of service
requirements. But in the distributed environment, the flexible
programming capability is difficult to implement and always confined
to reachability. As the introducing of central control in the
network, the flexible MPLS programming capability becomes possible
owing to two factors: 1. It becomes easier to allocate label for
more purposes than reachability; 2. It is easy to calculate the MPLS
path in a global network view. Moreover, the MPLS path programming
capability can be utilized to satisfy more requirements of service
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
bearing in the service layer which is defined as Service-oriented
MPLS path programming. BGP will play an important role for MPLS path
programming to download programmed MPLS path and map the service path
to the transport path. This document defines BGP extensions to
support Service-oriented MPLS path programming.
2. Terminology
BGP: Border Gateway Protocol
EVPN: Ethernet VPN
L2VPN: Layer 2 VPN
L3VPN: Layer 3 VPN
MPP: MPLS Path Programming
MVPN: Multicast VPN
RR: Route Reflector
SR-Path: Segment Routing Path
NLRI: Network Layer Reachability Information
3. Architecture and Usecases of SoMPP
3.1. Architecture
The architecture of BGP-based MPLS path programming is shown in the
Figure 1. Central control plays an important role in MPLS path
programming. It can extend the MPLS path programming capability
easily. The central controller can calculate path in a global
network view and implement the MPLS path programming to satisfy
different requirements of services. The result of MPLS path
programming can be advertised from the central controller to the
client nodes through BGP extensions to the ingress PEs. When client
nodes receives the result of MPLS path programming, it will install
the MPLS forwarding entry for the specified BGP prefix to implement
the service process.
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
+-------------------+
| Central |
| Controller |
|----------|(Path Calculation |--------|
| | /Path Programming)| |
| +-------------------+ |
| |
MPLS Path MPLS Path
| |
| |
| |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
| CLIENT | | CLIENT | | CLIENT |
| | ...... | | ...... | |
| (PE) | | (P) | | (PE) |
| | | | | |
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Figure 1 BGP-based MPLS Path Programming
3.2. Usecases
3.2.1. Deterministic ECMP
Entropy Label[RFC6790] is introduced to improve the ECMP capability
by encapsulate the entropy label in the MPLS label stack. The
existing implementation is always to calculate the entropy label
based on the header of packets by specific hash algorithm in the
ingress node. That is, the entropy label is determined locally by
the ingress node. The method can improve the hash of packets in the
network for load-sharing. But since the ingress node lacks the
knowledge of the global traffic pattern of the network and calculates
the entropy label by itself it may be not able to improve the ECMP
capability accurately and in some cases it may deteriorate the
imbalance of load-sharing.
With the central controlled MPLS path programming, the central
controller can collect the global traffic pattern information of the
network and based on the information deterministically calculate the
entropy label for specific flows to help improve the load-sharing of
the network. Then the central controller can download the label
stack information with the deterministic entropy label to the ingress
PEs for the specific BGP prefix. The ingress node can install the
MPLS forwarding entry shown in the following figure to help optimize
the ECMP of the flow specified by the BGP prefix, then optimize the
ECMP of the whole network.
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
+----------+ +----------+----------+
| BGP | ---> | Entropy |BGP Prefix| ---> Transport
| Prefix | | Label | Label | Tunnel
+----------+ +----------+----------+
3.2.2. Centralized Mapping of Service to Tunnels
In the network there can be multiple tunnels to one specific
destination which satisfy different constraints. In the traditional
way, the tunnel is set up by the distributed forwarding nodes. As
the PCE-initiated LSP setup [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] is
introduced, the tunnel with different constraints can be set up in
the central controlled way. In order to satisfy different service
requirements, it is necessary to provide the capability to flexibly
map the service to different tunnels which constraints can satisfy
the required service requirement. Since the central controller has
enough information of the whole network view, it can be an effective
way to map the service (such as L3VPN and L2VPN) to the tunnel by the
central controller and advertise the mapping information to the
ingress PE of the service to guide the mapping in the forwarding
node.
There can be two types of behaviors to map service to the tunnel:
1. Specify the tunnel type: with the method BGP will carry the
tunnel type information for the BGP prefix. When the ingress PE
receives the information, it will use the tunnel type and the nexthop
address (or other specified target IP address) to search the
corresponding tunnels to bear the flow specified by the BGP prefix.
If there are more than one tunnels, the ingress PE will load share
the traffic across all the tunnels.
2. Specify the specific tunnel: For MPLS TE/SR-TE tunnel, there can
be multiple MPLS TE tunnels from one ingress PE to a specific
destination with different constraints. BGP can carry the tunnel
identifier information for the BGP prefix from the controller to the
ingress node. When the ingress PE receives the information, it will
use the tunnel identifier information to search the corresponding
tunnels to bear the flow specified by the BGP prefix. If there are
multiple tunnel identifiers, the ingress PE will load share the
traffic across all the tunnels.
4. Advertising Label Stacks in BGP
According to the service requirements, the central controller can
combine MPLS labels flexibly. Then it can download the service label
combination for specific prefix. BGP extensions are necessary to
advertise label stacks for the prefix in NLRI field.
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
+---------------------------+
| Length (1 octet) |
+---------------------------+
| Label (3 octets) |
+---------------------------+
.............................
+---------------------------+
| Prefix (variable) |
+---------------------------+
Figure 2: NLRI Definition in RFC3107
[RFC3107] defines above NLRI to advertise label binding for specific
prefix. The label field can carry one or more labels. Each label is
encoded as 3 octets, where the high-order 20 bits contain the label
value, and the low order bit contains "Bottom of Stack". But for the
other AFI/SAFIs using label binding such as IPv4 Flowspec, IPv6
Flowspec, VPNv4, VPNv6, EVPN, MVPN, etc., it dose not support the
capability to carry more labels for the specific prefix. Moreover
for the AFI/SAFIs which do not support label binding capability
originally, but may possibly adopt MPLS path programming now, there
is no label field in the NLRI. In order to support flexible MPLS
path programming, this document defines and uses a new BGP attribute
called the "Extended Label attribute". This is an optional
transitive BGP attribute. The attribute type code is (TBA by IANA),
the value field of this attribute is defined as follows:
+---------------------------+
| Label 1 (3 octets) |
+---------------------------+
| Label 2 (3 octets) |
+---------------------------+
.............................
+---------------------------+
| Label n (3 octets) |
+---------------------------+
Figure 3: Extended Label Attribute
The Label field carries one or more labels (that corresponds to the
stack of labels [[RFC3032]]). Each label is encoded as 3 octets,
where the high-order 20 bits contain the label value, and the low
order bit contains "Bottom of Stack" (as defined in [[RFC3032]]). In
the last label, the S bit MUST be "1"; in the other labels, the S bit
MUST be "0".
The "Extended Label attribute" can be used for various BGP address
families. Before using this attribute, firstly, it is necessary to
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
negotiate the capability between two nodes to support MPLS path
programming for a specific BGP address family. If negotiation fails,
a node MUST NOT send this attribute and MUST discard this attribute
when it receives.
4.1. Download of MPLS Path
The Central Controller for MPLS path programming could build a route
with Extended Label attribute and send it to the ingress routers.
Upon receiving such a route from the Central Controller, the ingress
router SHOULD select such a route as the best path. If a packet
comes into the ingress router and uses such a path, the ingress
router will encapsulate the stack of labels which is derived from the
Extended Label Attribute of the route into the packet and forward the
packet along the path.
4.2. Mapping Traffic to MPLS Path
The Extended Label attribute can be used for BGP Flowspec address
families. BGP advertises the Flowspec with the Extended Label
attribute, so the flow packets can be redirected to the MPLS Path
which is derived from the Extended Label Attribute.
5. Download of Mapping of Service Path to Transport Path
5.1. Specify Tunnel Type
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps] proposes the Tunnel Encapsulation
Attribute which can be used without BGP Encapsulation SAFI to specify
a set of tunnels. It defines a series of Encapsulation Sub-TLVs for
particular tunnel types. It also defines the Remote Endpoint
Attributes Sub-TLV to specify the remote tunnel endpoint address for
each tunnel which can be different the BGP nexthop. The Tunnel
Encapsulation Attributes can be reused for the MPLS path programming
to specify the tunnel types, the encapsulation and the remote tunnel
endpoint address which can determine a set of tunnels which the
service can map to. Now the limited MPLS tunnel types are defined
for the Tunnel Encapsulation Attributes. In order to support MPLS
path programming, the following MPLS tunnel types are to be defined:
Value Tunnel Type
------- ---------------------------------------------------
TBD LDP LSP
TBD RSVP-TE LSP
TBD MPLS-based Segment Routing Best-effort Path
TBD MPLS-based Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Path
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
5.2. Specify Specific Tunnel
Besides specifying the tunnel types to determine the set of tunnels
which the service traffic can map to, the specific tunnels can be
specified directly by the tunnel identifiers when map the service
traffic to the path. BGP extensions is necessary that through the
community attribute of BGP the identifier of the transport path can
be carried when advertise the specific prefix.
In order to support the application, this document defines a new BGP
attribute called the "Extended Unicast Tunnel attribute". This is an
optional transitive BGP attribute. The attribute type code is (TBA
by IANA), the value field of this attribute is defined as follows:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| First Tunnel entry (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Second Tunnel entry (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| ... |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| N-th Tunnel entry (variable) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
The Tunnel entry is defined as follows:
+------------------------------------------------+
| Flags (1 octet) |
+------------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Type (1 octets) |
+------------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Identifier (variable) |
+------------------------------------------------+
| Tunnel Specific Attributes (Variable)(Optional)|
+------------------------------------------------+
The Flags is reserved and must be set as zero. The Tunnel Type
identifies the type of the tunneling technology used for the unicast
service path. The tunnel type determines the syntax and semantics of
the Tunnel Identifier field. This document defines following Tunnel
Types:
+ 0 - No tunnel information present
+ 1 - RSVP-TE LSP
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
+ 2 - MPLS-based Segment Routing Traffic Engineering Path
Tunnel Specific Attributes contains the attributes of the tunnel.
The field is optional. The value depends on the tunnel type. It
will be defined in the future versions.
When the Tunnel Type is set to "No tunnel information present", the
Tunnel attribute carries no tunnel information (no Tunnel
Identifier). when the type is used, the tunnel used for the service
path is determined by the ingress router.
When the Tunnel Type is set to RSVP - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)
Label Switched Path (LSP), the Tunnel Identifier is <C-Type, Tunnel
Sender Address, Tunnel ID, Tunnel End-point Address> as specified in
[RFC3209] If C-Type = 7, Tunnel Sender Address and Tunnel End-point
Address are IPv4 address in 4 octets. If C-Type = 8, Tunnel Sender
Address and Tunnel End-point Address are IPv6 address in 16 octets.
The other fields in the RSVP-TE LSP Identifier are the same as
specified in [RFC3209].
When the Tunnel Type is set to MPLS-based Segment Routing Traffic
Engineering Path, the Tunnel Identifier is <C-Type, Tunnel Sender
Address, Tunnel ID, Tunnel End-point Address>. If C-Type = 7, Tunnel
Sender Address and Tunnel End-point Address are IPv4 address in 4
octets. If C-Type = 8, Tunnel Sender Address and Tunnel End-point
Address are IPv6 address in 16 octets. The tunnel identifier is
similar as that of RSVP-TE LSP.
BGP can carry multiple Tunnel entries in one Extended Unicast Tunnel
attribute for specific prefix. If there are multiple tunnel entries,
the ingress PE can load share the traffic across all the specified
tunnels for the service traffic determined by the specific BGP
prefix, or selects the primary / Backup tunnels from the multiple
tunnel entries.
The "Redirect-to-Tunnel Action" for BGP Flowspec has been described
in[I-D.hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel]. This document reuses the
tunnel identifier and defines it in the Extended Unicast Tunnel
attribute which can be used for "Redirect-to-Tunnel Action".
6. Route Flag Extended Community
In order to make the MPLS path programming to take effect, the route
advertised by the central controller after the MPLS Path Programming
should be selected by the ingress PE over other routes for the same
BGP prefix. There are two options of BGP extensions for the purpose:
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
Option 1: A new BGP Extended Community called as the "Route Flag
Extended Community" can be introduced. The Type value is to be
assigned by IANA.
The Route Flag Extended Community is used to carry the flag appointed
by the BGP central controller.
The format of this extended community is defined as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| Type | Reserved |Flag |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Flag = 0, Treat as normal route
Flag = 1, Treat as best route
When a router receives a BGP route with a Route Flag Extended
Community and the Flag set to "1", it SHOULD use the route as the
best route when select the route from multiple routes for a specific
prefix.
Option 2: [I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision] defines a new Extended
Community, called the Cost Community, which can be used in tie
breaking during the best path selection process. The Cost Community
can be reused by the MPLS path programming to set the "Point of
Insertion" as 128 to make the route advertised by the central
controller to be chosen.
7. Destination Node Attribute
This document defines and uses a new BGP attribute called as the
"Destination Node attribute" which Type value is to be assigned by
IANA. The Destination Node attribute is an optional non-transitive
attribute that can be applied to any address family.
The Destination Node attribute is used to carry a list of node
addresses, which are intended to be used to determine the nodes where
the route with such attribute SHOULD be considered. If a node
receives a BGP route with a Destination Node attribute, it MUST check
the node address list. If one address of the list belongs to this
node, the route MUST be used in this node. Otherwise the route MUST
be ignored silently.
The format of this attribute is defined as follows:
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AFI | SAFI | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
~ Destination Node Address List ~
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
AFI: Address Family Identifier (16 bits).
SAFI: Subsequent Address Family Identifier (8 bits).
Reserved: One octet reserved for special flags
Destination Node Address List: The list of IPv4 (AFI=1) or IPv6
(AFI=2) address.
8. Capability Negotiation
It is necessary to negotiate the capability to support MPLS path
programming. The MPLS-Path-Programming Capability is a new BGP
capability [RFC5492]. The Capability Code for this capability is to
be specified by the IANA. The Capability Length field of this
capability is variable. The Capability Value field consists of one
or more of the following tuples:
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Address Family Identifier (2 octets) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Subsequent Address Family Identifier (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Send/Receive (1 octet) |
+--------------------------------------------------+
The meaning and use of the fields are as follows:
Address Family Identifier (AFI): This field is the same as the one
used in [RFC4760].
Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI): This field is the same
as the one used in [RFC4760].
Send/Receive: This field indicates whether the sender is (a) willing
to receive programming MPLS paths from its peer (value 1), (b) would
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
like to send programming MPLS paths to its peer (value 2), or (c)
both (value 3) for the <AFI, SAFI>.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would like to thank Lucy Yong, Susan
Hares, Eric Wu, Weiguo Hao, Pingan Li, Zhengqiang Li and Jie Dong for
their reviews and comments of this document.
10. IANA Considerations
TBD.
11. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC4271] and [RFC5575] are
applicable.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[I-D.hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-tunnel]
Weiguo, H., Li, Z., and L. Yong, "BGP Flow-Spec Redirect
to Tunnel Action", draft-hao-idr-flowspec-redirect-
tunnel-01 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-idr-custom-decision]
Retana, A. and R. White, "BGP Custom Decision Process",
draft-ietf-idr-custom-decision-07 (work in progress),
November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps]
Rosen, E., Patel, K., and G. Velde, "The BGP Tunnel
Encapsulation Attribute", draft-ietf-idr-tunnel-encaps-02
(work in progress), May 2016.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
[RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement
with BGP-4", RFC 5492, DOI 10.17487/RFC5492, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5492>.
[RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J.,
and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification
Rules", RFC 5575, DOI 10.17487/RFC5575, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5575>.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp]
Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP
Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-07 (work in
progress), July 2016.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, DOI 10.17487/RFC3107, May 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3107>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6790>.
Authors' Addresses
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP Extensions for MPLS Path Programming October 2016
Zhenbin Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com
Shunwan Zhuang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: zhuangshunwan@huawei.com
Sujian Lu
Tencent
Tengyun Building,Tower A ,No. 397 Tianlin Road
Shanghai, Xuhui District 200233
China
Email: jasonlu@tencent.com
Li, et al. Expires May 3, 2017 [Page 14]
