Internet DRAFT - draft-song-mpls-extension-header
draft-song-mpls-extension-header
MPLS H. Song, Ed.
Internet-Draft Futurewei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track T. Zhou
Expires: 13 April 2024 Huawei Technologies
L. Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting
Z. Zhang
Juniper Networks
R. Gandhi
Cisco Systems
11 October 2023
MPLS Network Actions using Post-Stack Extension Headers
draft-song-mpls-extension-header-13
Abstract
Motivated by the need to support multiple in-network services and
functions in an MPLS network (a.k.a. MPLS Network Actions or MNA),
this document describes a generic and extensible method to
encapsulate MNA instructions as well as possible ancillary data in an
MPLS packet. All the post-stack MNAs are encapsulated in a structure
called Post-stack Action Header (PAH). A PAH is composed of a common
header plus a chain of extension headers with each serving as a
container for an MNA. The encapsulation method allows chaining
multiple post-stack extension headers and provides the means to
enable fast access to them as well as the original upper layer
headers. We confine this document to the solution of PAH encoding
and leave the specification of PAH indicator to the overall MNA
solution. We show how PAH can be used to support several new MNAs as
a generic post-stack mechanism.
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.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
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 13 April 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. MPLS Post-stack Network Action Header . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scope of MPLS Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Operation on MPLS PAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
1. Motivation
Some applications require adding sizable action instructions and/or
ancillary data to packets within an MPLS network. Such examples
include In-situ OAM (IOAM) [RFC9197] and Service Function Chaining
(SFC) [RFC7665]. New applications are emerging. It is possible that
the instructions and/or ancillary data for multiple MNAs are stacked
together in one packet to support a compound service.
Such instructions and/or ancillary data would need to be encoded and
encapsulated as new headers in packets. Such headers may require to
be processed in fast path due to performance considerations.
Moreover, such headers may require being attended at each hop on the
forwarding path (i.e., hop-by-hop or HBH) or at designated end nodes
(i.e., end-to-end or E2E).
The use cases and requirements to support such applications in MPLS
networks, i.e., MPLS Network Actions (MNA), are described in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases] and [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements].
It is clear that some header should be located after the MPLS label
stack. We call such a header a Post-stack Action Header (PAH). The
encapsulation of PAH poses some challenges to MPLS networks, because
the MPLS label stack contains no explicit indicator for the upper
layer protocols by design.
The mechanism to indicate the presence of the PAH is out of the scope
of this document. The indication for the presence of the PAH can be
achieved using several mechanisms, including carrying a Special
Purpose Label (SPL) or signaling it with the label Forwarding
Equivalence Class (FEC) as described in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]. In
this document, we focus on the encoding and encapsulation of the PAH
in an MPLS packet.
The conventional header encoding and encapsulation methods face some
challenges in the case of post-stack MNA:
* A solution may rely on either the built-in next-protocol indicator
in the header or the knowledge of the format and size of the
header to access the following packet headers. This method
requires each node to be able to parse the new header, which is
unrealistic in an incremental deployment environment.
* Some works provide only piecemeal solutions which assume the new
header is the only extra header and its location in the packet is
fixed by default (e.g., Encapsulation of SFC NSH in MPLS
[RFC8596]). It is impossible or difficult to support multiple new
headers in one packet due to the conflicting location assumption.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
* Some previous work such as G-ACH [RFC5586] was explicitly defined
for control channel only, but we need the mechanism to also work
for user packets.
To solve the aforementioned problems, we introduce PAH as a general
and extensible means to support new MNAs which involve instructions
and/or ancillary data for each MNA. The concept is similar to IPv6
extension headers which offer a huge potential for extending IPv6's
capability (e.g, network security, SRv6 [RFC8754], network
programming [RFC8986], SFC [I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming],
etc.). Thanks to the mechanism of extension headers, it is
straightforward to continue introducing new network services into
IPv6 networks.
Nevertheless, when applying the extension headers to MPLS, some
issues of the IPv6 EH should be avoided:
* IPv6's extension headers are chained with the original upper layer
protocol headers in a flat stack. One must scan all the extension
headers to access the upper layer protocol headers and the
payload. This is inconvenient and raises some performance
concerns for some applications (e.g., Deep Packet Inspection (DPI)
and Equal Cost Multi Path (ECMP)). The new PAH scheme for MPLS
needs to improve this.
* [RFC8200] enforces many constraints to IPv6 extension headers
(e.g., EH can only be added or deleted by the end nodes specified
by the IP addresses in the IPv6 header, and there is only one Hop-
by-Hop EH that can be processed on the path nodes), which are not
suitable for MPLS networks. For example, MPLS label stacks are
added and changed in network, and there could be tunnel within
tunnel, so the extension headers need more flexibility.
2. MPLS Post-stack Network Action Header
The concept and design of the PAH comply with the requirements laid
out in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]. All the post-stack MNAs are
encapsulated in a PAH. A PAH is composed of a common header plus a
chain of extension headers; each extension header is a container for
an MNA. Here we highlight some design objectives of PAH (Note: these
should be covered by the MNA requirement document):
Performance: Unnecessary full extension header chain scanning for
all MNAs or the upper layer headers should be avoided. The
extension headers should be ordered according to the access need.
Each extension header should serve only one MNA to avoid the need
of packing multiple TLV options in one extension header.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
Scalability: New MNAs can be supported by introducing new extension
headers. Multiple extension headers can be easily stacked
together to support multiple services simultaneously.
Backward Compatibility: Legacy devices which do not recognize the
PAH should still be able to forward the packets based on the top
label as usual. If a PAH-aware device recognizes some of the MNAs
but not the others in an extension header chain, it can process
the known MNAs only while ignoring the others.
Flexibility: A node (i.e., an LER or LSR) can be configured to
process or not process any EH. Any tunnel end nodes in the MPLS
domain can add new EH to the packets which shall be removed on the
other end of the tunnel.
We assume the MPLS label stack has included some indicator of the
PAH. The actual PAH is inserted between the MPLS label stack and the
original upper layer header. The format of the MPLS packets with PAH
is shown in Figure 1.
0 31
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| |
~ MPLS Label Stack ~
| |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| BoS Label |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Common Header of PAH (CH) | \
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |
| | |
~ Extension Header (EH) 1 ~ |
| | |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ >MPLS PAH
~ ... ... ~ |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ |
| | |
~ Extension Header (EH) n ~ |
| | /
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Original |
~ Upper Layer Headers/Payload ~
| |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 1: MPLS with Post Stack Network Action Header
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
Following the MPLS label stack is the 4-octet Common Header of PAH
(CH), which indicates the total number of extension headers in this
packet, the overall length of the PAH, the type of the original upper
layer header, and the type of the next extension header. The format
of the CH is shown in Figure 2.
0 1 2 3
0123 4567 89012345 67890123 45678901
+----+----+--------+--------+--------+
| R |EHC | EHTL | OUL | NH |
+----+----+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 2: CH Format
The meaning of the fields in a CH is as follows:
R: undefined first nibble. The nibble value means to avoid any
potential conflicting with IP version numbers and other well-
defined semantics [I-D.kbbma-mpls-1stnibble]. The value of it
will comply with the standard resolutions.
EHC: 4-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Counter. This
field keeps the total number of extension headers included in this
packet. It does not count the original upper layer headers. At
most 15 EHs are allowed in one packet.
EHTL: 8-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Total Length
in 4-octet units. This field keeps the total length of the EHs in
this packet, not including the CH itself.
OUL: 8-bit Original Upper Layer protocol number indicating the
original upper layer protocol type. It can be set to "UNKNOWN"
(value TBD) if unknown. Sometimes the MPLS FEC may indicate the
type of payload. In this case either OUL is redundant or OUL can
be used to replace the control plane mechanism.
NH: 8-bit indicator for the Next Header. This field identifies the
type of the MNA in the extension header immediately following the
CH.
The value of the reserved nibble needs further consideration. The
EHC field can be used to keep track of the number of extension
headers when some headers are inserted or removed at some network
nodes. The EHTL field can help to skip all the EHs in one step if
the original upper layer headers or payload need to be accessed. The
OUL field can help identify the type of the original upper layer
protocol.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
The format of an Extension Header (EH) is shown in Figure 3.
0 1 2 3
01234567 89012345 67890123 45678901
+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| NH | HLEN | EXT(opt) |
+--------+--------+--------+-------+
| |
~ MNA Instruction/Ancillary Data ~
| |
+--------+--------+----------------+
Figure 3: EH Format
The meaning of the fields in an EH is as follows:
NH: 8-bit indicator for the Next Header type. This field identifies
the type of the MNA in the EH immediately following this EH.
HLEN: 8-bit unsigned integer for the Extension Header Length in
4-octet units, not including the first 4 octets.
EXT: 16-bit optional type extension. To save the Next Header
numbers and extend the number space, it is possible to use one
"Next Header" code to cover a set of sub-types. For example, IOAM
has several different options, such as trace and DEX. It is too
expensive to assign an EH type for each of it. In this case, it
is better to have a single EH type value for IOAM, and use the EXT
to specify the option types. This field is optional and only
specified for some specific MNA types. This field can also be
used to encode other information.
MNA Instruction/Ancillary Data: A variable length field for the
specification of an MNA. This field may need to be padded to make
the EH 4-octet aligned.
The extension headers as well as the first original upper layer
protocol header are chained together through the NH field in CH and
EHs. The encoding of NH can share the same value registry for IPv4/
IPv6 protocol numbers. Values for new MNA types (i.e., NH number)
shall be assigned by IANA from the same registry as for the ipv4 and
ipv6 protocol numbers (https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-
numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml).
Specifically, the NH field of the last EH in a chain can have some
special values, which shall be assigned by IANA as well:
NONE (No Next Header): Indicates that there is no other header and
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
payload after this EH. This can be used to transport packets with
only extension header(s), for example, the control packets for
control or the probe packets for measurements. Note that value 59
was reserved for "IPv6 No Next Header" indicator. It may be
possible for MPLS EH to share this value (Note: need to work with
6MAN).
UNKNOWN (Unknown Next Header): Indicates that the type of the header
after this header is unknown. This is intended to be compatible
with the original MPLS design in which the upper layer protocol
type is unknown from the MPLS header alone.
MPLS: Indicates that the next protocol header is still of MPLS type
and another MPLS label stack follows.
These NH values can only appear in the last EH in an PAH. Note that
the original upper layer protocol can be of type "MPLS", which
implies that a packet may contain multiple logically independent
label stacks separated by PAH. Having more than one independent
label stack is not new. For example, A Bier header could separate
the transport/bier labels and the payload labels; An MPLS Pseudo Wire
(PW) network could be implemented on the top of another
infrastructure MPLS network. In such cases, we have the flexibility
to apply different services to different label stacks.
3. Scope of MPLS Extension Headers
Basically, MPLS EHs have two application scopes based on the nature
of the contained MNA: HBH and E2E. E2E means that the EH is only
supposed to be inserted/removed and processed at the MPLS tunnel end
points where the MPLS header is inserted or removed. The EHs that
need to be processed on path nodes within the MPLS tunnel are of the
HBH type. However, any node in the tunnel can be configured to
ignore an HBH EH, even if it is capable of processing it.
If there are two types of EHs in a packet, the HBH EHs must take
precedence over the E2E EHs.
Making a distinction of the EH types and ordering the EHs in a packet
help improve the forwarding performance. For example, if a node
within an MPLS tunnel finds only E2E EHs in a packet, it can avoid
scanning the EH list.
The scope of an EH (i.e., HBH or E2E) is an intrinsic property of the
contained MNA. In other words, such information can be inferred from
the NH value.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
4. Operation on MPLS PAH
An encapsulation node (i.e., an MPLS router) on an MPLS Label
Switched Path (LSP), when receiving a packet that matches the policy
for applying one or more post-stack MNAs, will include them in the
PAH as EHs, process the MNAs if needed, and then forward the packet
to a next node on the path. The other nodes on the LSP, when
receiving this packet, will process the MNAs if needed (e.g., for the
HBH type of EH) and forward the packet. Finally, each post-stack MNA
has a decapsulation node on the LSP. When receiving the packet, the
decapsulation node will process the MNA, remove the corresponding EH,
update the PAH, and forward the packet. The encapsulation/
decapsulation nodes are configured through control plane for which
the mechanism is out of scope of this document.
Each post stack MNA is contained in an EH. A new EH to be inserted
may or may not be the first EH in the packet. Similarly, an EH to be
removed may or may not be the last EH is the packet. The details on
MNA encapsulation and decapsulation are described as follows:
A suitable indication for the presence of PAH is ensured before
adding the first EH X to an MPLS packet. Then the PAH is inserted
after the MPLS label stack. In the CH of the PAH, EHC is set to 1,
EHTL is set to the length of X in 4-octet units, OUL is set to a
proper value, and NH is set to the header type value of X. At last,
X is inserted after the CH, in which NH and HLEN are set accordingly.
Note that if this operation happens at a PE device, the upper layer
protocol is known before the MPLS encapsulation, so its value can be
saved in the OUL and NH field if desired. Otherwise, the NH field is
filled with the value of "UNKNOWN".
When an EH Y needs to be added to an MPLS packet which already
contains the PAH, the EHC and EHTL in the CH are updated accordingly
(i.e., EHC is incremented by 1 and EHTL is incremented by the size of
Y in 4-octet units). Then a proper location for Y in the EH chain is
located. Y is inserted at this location. The NH field of Y is
copied from the previous EH's NH field (or from the CH's NH field, if
Y is the first EH in the chain). The previous EH's NH value, or, if
Y is the first EH in the chain, the CH's NH value, is set to the NH
value of Y.
Deleting an EH simply reverses the above operation. If the deleted
EH is the last one, the PAH indicator and the PAH can also be
removed.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
When processing an MPLS packet with multiple extension headers in an
PAH, the node needs to parse through the entire EH chain and process
the EH one by one (but not necessarily in the parsing order). The
node should ignore any EH that is not recognized or is configured as
"Do not Processing" by the control plane.
The EH can be categorized into HBH or E2E. Since EHs are ordered
based on their type (i.e., HBH EHs are located before E2E EHs), a
node can avoid some unnecessary EH scan.
5. Use Cases
In this section, we show how PAH can be used to support several new
network applications.
In-situ OAM: In-situ OAM (IOAM) records flow OAM information within
user packets while the packets traverse a network. The
instruction and collected data are kept in an IOAM header
[RFC9197]. When applying IOAM in an MPLS network, the IOAM header
can be encapsulated in an extension header within an PAH.
Network Telemetry and Measurement: A network telemetry and
instruction header can be carried as an extension header in PAH to
instruct a node what type of network measurements should be done.
For example, the method described in [RFC8321] can be implemented
in MPLS networks since the EH provides a natural way to color MPLS
packets.
Network Security: Security related functions often require user
packets to carry some instruction and ancillary data. In a DoS
limiting network architecture, a "packet passport" header is used
to embed packet authentication information for each node to
verify.
Segment Routing and Network Programming: MPLS extension header in
PAH can support the implementation of a new flavor of the MPLS-
based segment routing, with better performance and richer
functionalities. The details will be described in another draft.
With PAH, multiple in-network applications can be chained together as
extension headers. For example, IOAM and SFC can be applied at the
same time to support network OAM and service function chaining. A
node can stop scanning the extension header chain if all the known
headers it can process have been located. For example, if IOAM is
the first EH in a chain and a node is configured to process IOAM
only, it can stop searching the EH chain when the IOAM EH is found.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
Details on some of these use cases and discussions on some other use
cases are covered in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases].
6. Security Considerations
The major security concerns may come from the MNAs that encapsulated
in the PAH. So we need to be careful to admit actions and take
measures to avoid the security threats such as information leak or
DoS attack.
7. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to assign two new Internet Protocol
Numbers from the "Protocol Numbers" Registry to indicate "No Next
Header" and "Unknown Next Header".
This document does not create any other new registries. New
registries for protocol numbers and type extension numbers should be
requested by each MNA use case document.
8. Contributors
The other coauthors of this document are listed as follows.
* Zhenbin Li (Huawei Technologies)
* Jaganbabu Rajamanickam (Cisco Systems)
* Jisu Bhattacharya (Cisco Systems)
The other contributors of this document are listed as follows.
* James Guichard
* Stewart Bryant
* Andrew Malis
9. Acknowledgments
We thank Tarek Saad and the other members of MPLS ODT for helping
improve this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
[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>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options]
Bhandari, S. and F. Brockners, "In-situ OAM IPv6 Options",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
ipv6-options-12, 7 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-
ioam-ipv6-options-12>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-04, 5 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-fwk-04>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "Requirements for
MPLS Network Actions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-07, 18 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-requirements-07>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-03, 15 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-usecases-03>.
[I-D.ietf-spring-sr-service-programming]
Clad, F., Xu, X., Filsfils, C., Bernier, D., Li, C.,
Decraene, B., Ma, S., Yadlapalli, C., Henderickx, W., and
S. Salsano, "Service Programming with Segment Routing",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-spring-sr-
service-programming-08, 21 August 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-
sr-service-programming-08>.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
[I-D.kbbma-mpls-1stnibble]
Kompella, K., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., Mirsky, G., and L.
Andersson, "IANA Registry for the First Nibble Following a
Label Stack", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
kbbma-mpls-1stnibble-05, 11 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kbbma-mpls-
1stnibble-05>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[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>.
[RFC8321] Fioccola, G., Ed., Capello, A., Cociglio, M., Castaldelli,
L., Chen, M., Zheng, L., Mirsky, G., and T. Mizrahi,
"Alternate-Marking Method for Passive and Hybrid
Performance Monitoring", RFC 8321, DOI 10.17487/RFC8321,
January 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8321>.
[RFC8596] Malis, A., Bryant, S., Halpern, J., and W. Henderickx,
"MPLS Transport Encapsulation for the Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8596,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8596, June 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8596>.
[RFC8754] Filsfils, C., Ed., Dukes, D., Ed., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
Matsushima, S., and D. Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header
(SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI 10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[RFC8986] Filsfils, C., Ed., Camarillo, P., Ed., Leddy, J., Voyer,
D., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "Segment Routing over IPv6
(SRv6) Network Programming", RFC 8986,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8986, February 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8986>.
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS Post-Stack Action Header October 2023
[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>.
Authors' Addresses
Haoyu Song (editor)
Futurewei Technologies
Santa Clara,
United States of America
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei Technologies
Beijing
P.R. China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Loa Andersson
Bronze Dragon Consulting
Stockholm
Sweden
Email: loa@pi.nu
Zhaohui Zhang
Juniper Networks
Boston,
United States of America
Email: zzhang@juniper.net
Rakesh Gandhi
Cisco Systems
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Song, et al. Expires 13 April 2024 [Page 14]
