Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls) Internet Drafts
| Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base for Fast Reroute | |||||||||||||||||
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects used to support two fast reroute (FRR) methods for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) based traffic engineering (TE). The two methods are one-to-one backup method and facility backup method. | ||||||||||||||||
| MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document details Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption, a suite of protocol modifications extending the concept of preemption with the goal of reducing/ eliminating traffic disruption of preempted Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs). Initially MPLS RSVP-TE was defined supporting only immediate TE LSP displacement upon preemption. The utilization of a preemption pending flag helps more gracefully mitigate the re-route process of preempted TE LSP. For the brief period soft preemption is activated, reservations (though not necessarily traffic levels) are in effect under-provisioned until the TE LSP(s) can be re-routed. For this reason, the feature is primarily but not exclusively interesting in MPLS enabled IP networks with Differentiated Services and Traffic Engineering capabilities. | ||||||||||||||||
| Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping | |||||||||||||||||
|
Recent proposals have extended the scope of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) to encompass point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. The requirement for a simple and efficient mechanism that can be used to detect data plane failures in point-to-point (P2P) MPLS LSPs has been recognised and has led to the development of techniques for fault detection and isolation commonly referred to as "LSP Ping". The scope of this document is fault detection and isolation for P2MP MPLS LSPs. This documents does not replace any of the mechanisms of LSP Ping, but clarifies their applicability to MPLS P2MP LSPs, and extends the techniques and mechanisms of LSP Ping to the MPLS P2MP environment. | ||||||||||||||||
| Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Link Bundles | |||||||||||||||||
|
Record Route is a useful administrative tool that has been used extensively by the service providers. However, when TE links are bundled, identification of label resource in Record Route Object (RRO) is not enough for the administrative purpose. Network service providers would like to know the component link within a TE link that is being used by a given LSP. In other words, when link bundling is used, resource recording requires mechanisms to specify the component link identifier, along with the TE link identifier and Label. As it is not possible to record component link in the RRO, this draft defines the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to specify component link identifiers for resource recording purposes. This draft also defines the Explicit Route Object (ERO) counterpart of the RRO extension. The ERO extensions are needed to perform explicit label/ resource control over bundled TE link. Hence, this document defines the extensions to RSVP-TE [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to specify component link identifiers for explicit resource control and recording over TE link bundles. | ||||||||||||||||
| MPLS Multicast Encapsulations | |||||||||||||||||
|
RFC 3032 established two data link layer codepoints for MPLS, used to distinguish whether the data link layer frame is carrying an MPLS unicast or an MPLS multicast packet. However, this usage was never deployed. This specification updates RFC 3032 by redefining the meaning of these two codepoints. Both codepoints can now be used to carry multicast packets. The second codepoint (formerly the "multicast codepoint") is now to be used only on multiaccess media, and it is to mean "the top label of the following label stack is an upstream-assigned label". RFC 3032 does not specify the destination address to be placed in the "MAC DA" field of an ethernet frame which carries an MPLS multicast packet. This document provides that specification. This document updates RFC 3032 and RFC 4023. | ||||||||||||||||
| Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document describes extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) for the setup of point to multi-point (P2MP) and multipoint-to- multipoint (MP2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks. LDP constructs the P2MP or MP2MP LSPs without interacting with or relying upon any other multicast tree construction protocol. Protocol elements and procedures for this solution are described for building such LSPs in a receiver- initiated manner. There can be various applications for P2MP/MP2MP LSPs, for example IP multicast or support for multicast in BGP/MPLS L3VPNs. Specification of how such applications can use a LDP signaled P2MP/MP2MP LSP is outside the scope of this document. | ||||||||||||||||
| MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space | |||||||||||||||||
|
RFC 3031 limits the MPLS architecture to downstream-assigned MPLS labels. This document introduces the notion of upstream-assigned MPLS labels. It describes the procedures for upstream MPLS label assignment and introduces the concept of a "Context-Specific Label Space". | ||||||||||||||||
| Requirements for Point-To-Multipoint Extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document lists a set of functional requirements for Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) extensions for setting up point-to- multipoint (P2MP) Label Switched Paths (LSP), in order to deliver point-to-multipoint applications over a Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) infrastructure. It is intended that solutions that specify LDP procedures for setting up P2MP LSP satisfy these requirements. | ||||||||||||||||
| A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link | |||||||||||||||||
|
Several Link-type sub-TLVs have been defined for OSPF and IS-IS in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) in order to advertise some link characteristics such as the available bandwidth, traffic engineering metric, administrative group and so on. By making statistical assumption about the aggregated traffic carried onto a set of TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) signalled with zero bandwith (referred to as unconstrained TE LSP in this document), and with the knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a link, algorithms can be designed to load balance (existing or newly configured) unconstrained TE LSP across a set of equal cost paths. This requires knowledge of the number of unconstrained TE LSPs signalled across a link. This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic Engineering sub-TLV used to advertise the number of unconstrained TE LSP(s) signalled across a link. | ||||||||||||||||
| Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB) module | |||||||||||||||||
|
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) based traffic engineering (TE). The MIB module defined in this document is applicable to P2MP MPLS-TE by extensions to the MPLS-TE MIB module defined in RFC 3812. It is equally applicable to P2MP Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) in association with the GMPLS TE MIB module defined in RFC 4802. | ||||||||||||||||
| LDP Typed Wildcard FEC | |||||||||||||||||
|
The LDP specification [RFC5036] for the Wildcard FEC element has several deficiencies. This document corrects those deficiencies. In addition, it specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC for the Prefix FEC Element Type defined in RFC5036. | ||||||||||||||||
| P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document defines procedures for fast reroute protection of Point-To-MultiPoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE-LSP) in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) networks, based upon Point-To-MultiPoint Bypass Tunnels. The motivation for using P2MP Bypass Tunnels is to avoid potentially expensive data duplication along the backup path that could occur if Point-To-Point Bypass Tunnels were used, i.e., to optimize the bandwidth usage, during fast reroute protection of a link or a node. During link or node failure the traffic carried onto a protected P2MP TE-LSP is tunnelled within one or several P2MP Bypass Tunnels towards a set of Merge Points. To avoid data duplication, backup labels (i.e., inner labels) are assigned by the Point of Local Repair (PLR) according to the RSVP-TE upstream label assignment procedure. | ||||||||||||||||
| LDP Capabilities | |||||||||||||||||
|
A number of enhancements to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) have been proposed. Some have been implemented, and some are advancing toward standardization. It is likely that additional enhancements will be proposed in the future. At present LDP has no guidelines for advertising such enhancements at LDP session initialization time. There is also no mechanism to enable and disable enhancements after the session is established. This document provides guidelines for advertising LDP enhancements at session initialization time. It also defines a mechanism to enable and disable enhancements after LDP session establishment. | ||||||||||||||||
| Node behavior upon originating and receiving Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error message | |||||||||||||||||
|
The aim of this document is to describe a common practice with regard to the behavior of a node sending a Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Error message and to the behavior of a node receiving an RSVP Path Error message for a preempted Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). This document does not define any new protocol extensions. | ||||||||||||||||
| LDP extension for Inter-Area LSP | |||||||||||||||||
|
To facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSP) that would span multiple IGP areas in a given Autonomous System (AS), this document describes a new optional Longest Match Label Mapping Procedure for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). This procedure allows the use of a label if the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) Element matches an entry in the routing table (RIB). Matching is defined by an IP longest match search and does not mandate an exact match. | ||||||||||||||||
| Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document provides a security framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Networks (MPLS and GMPLS are described in [RFC3031] and [RFC3945]). This document addresses the security aspects that are relevant in the context of MPLS and GMPLS. It describes the security threats, the related defensive techniques, and the mechanisms for detection and reporting. This document emphasizes RSVP-TE and LDP security considerations, as well as Inter-AS and Inter-provider security considerations for building and maintaining MPLS and GMPLS networks across different domains or different Service Providers. | ||||||||||||||||
| Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs | |||||||||||||||||
|
Expires December 2008 [page 1] Internet-Draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-01.txt There are many deployment scenarios which require Egress LSR to receive binding of the RSVP-TE LSP to an application, and payload identification, using some "out-of-band" (OOB) mechanism. This document proposes protocol mechanisms to address this requirement. The procedures described in this document are equally applicable for point-to-point (P2P) and point-to- multipoint (P2MP) LSPs. Conventions used in this document In examples, "C:" and "S:" indicate lines sent by the client and server respectively. | ||||||||||||||||
| An Analysis of Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks | |||||||||||||||||
|
Traffic engineered Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS-TE) is deployed in providers' core networks. As providers plan to grow these networks, they need to understand whether existing protocols and implementations can support the network sizes that they are planning. This document presents an analysis of some of the scaling concerns for MPLS-TE core networks, and examines the value of two techniques (LSP hierarchies, and multipoint-to-point LSPs) for improving scaling. The intention is to motivate the development of appropriate deployment techniques and protocol extensions to enable the application of MPLS-TE in large networks. This document considers only scalability for point-to-point MPLS-TE. Point-to-multipoint MPLS-TE is for future study. | ||||||||||||||||
| LDP IGP Synchronization | |||||||||||||||||
|
In certain networks there is a dependency on edge-to-edge LSPs setup by LDP, e.g. networks that are used for MPLS VPN applications. For such applications it is not possible to rely on IP forwarding if the MPLS LSP is not operating appropriately. Blackholing of labeled traffic can occur in situations where the IGP is operational on a link but LDP is not operational on that link. While the link could still be used for IP forwarding, it is not useful for MPLS forwarding, for example, MPLS VPN; BGP route free core; or IP address carried in the packet is out of the RFC1918 space. This document describes a mechanism to avoid traffic loss due to this condition without introducing any protocol changes. | ||||||||||||||||
| "EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field" | |||||||||||||||||
|
The early MPLS documents defined the form of the MPLS Label Stack entry. This include a three bit field called the "EXP field". The exact use of this field was not defined by these documents, except to state that it was to be "reserved for experimental use". Although the intended use of the EXP field was as a "Class of Service" field, it was not named the "Class of Service" (CoS) field by these early documents because the use of such a CoS field was not considered to be sufficiently defined. Today a number of standards documents define its usage as a CoS field. . To avoid misunderstanding about how this field may be used, this document changes the name of the field to the "CoS field". In doing so it also updates documents that define the current use of the EXP this field. | ||||||||||||||||
| Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels | |||||||||||||||||
|
This document describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute over mpls tunnels and for traceroute of stitched mpls LSPs. The techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform traceroute FEC validation and path discovery for a LSP that goes over other mpls tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document describes enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379). These enhancements along with other procedures outlined in this document can be used to trace such LSPs. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Multiprotocol Label Switching (mpls)
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:
MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile (PDF)
Last Modified: 2008-04-23
Additional information is available at tools.ietf.org/wg/mpls
Chair(s):
Routing Area Director(s):
Routing Area Advisor:
Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: mpls@lists.ietf.orgTo Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/maillist.html
Description of Working Group:
The MPLS working group is responsible for standardizing a basetechnology for using label switching and for the implementation of
label-switched paths over various packet based link-level
technologies, such as Packet-over-Sonet, Frame Relay, ATM, and
LAN technologies (e.g. all forms of Ethernet, Token Ring, etc.).
This includes procedures and protocols for the distribution of
labels between routers and encapsulation.
The working group is also responsible for specifying the necessary
MIBs for the functionality specified in the base MPLS technology.
The first generation of the MPLS standards are largely complete,
and the current WG work items are:
- Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol extensions for
point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS
- Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol extensions for
traffic engineered point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS, including
soft preemption
- Define requirements and mechanisms for MPLS OAM
- Define an overall OAM framework for MPLS applications
- MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for multi-areas/multi-AS
in cooperation with the CCAMP WG
- Determine (with CCAMP) what procedures are appropriate for evaluating
proposals to extend the MPLS and GMPLS protocols, and document these
- Document current implementation practices for MPLS load sharing
The Working Group chairs tracking of the working group documents can be
viewed at http://www.tla-group.com/~mpls/mpls-wg-docs.htm
Goals and Milestones:
| Done | Submit documents from original MPLS effort to IESG | |
| Done | Framework for IP multicast over label-switched paths ready for advancement. | |
| Done | LDP fault tolerance specification ready for advancement to Proposed Standard. | |
| Done | Submit Definitions of Managed Objects for MultoiProtocol Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Specification for MPLS-specific recovery ready for advancement. | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forward Equivalency Class-To-Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR), Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standards | |
| Done | Submit the Traffic Engineering Link MIB to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit a specification on Encapsulations to carry MPLS over IP and GRE to the IESG for as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit specification on LSP Ping to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit a document defining the scope, requirements, and issues to resolve for setup of P2MP TE LSPs (MPLS and GMPLS) | |
| Done | Submit an OAM Framework Document to the IESG for publication as an Informational RFC | |
| Done | Submit a BCP on MPLS load sharing to the IESG | |
| Done | Submit specification on LSR Self Test to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Done | Submit document(s) specifying protocol extensions, enhancements and mechanisms for setup of P2MP TE LSPs | |
| Jun 2007 | Submit requirements for point-to-multipoint extensions to LDP | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit document(s) specifying LDP extensions for setup of P2MP LSPs | |
| Dec 2007 | Submit a specification on Soft Pre-emption of LSP Tunnels to the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard | |
| Mar 2008 | Submit a MPLS security framework for publication as an informational RFC |
Internet-Drafts:
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base for Fast Reroute (90041 bytes)MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption (29491 bytes)
Detecting Data Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) - Extensions to LSP Ping (63450 bytes)
Component Link Recording and Resource Control for TE Link Bundles (29859 bytes)
MPLS Multicast Encapsulations (23484 bytes)
Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths (80700 bytes)
MPLS Upstream Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space (30920 bytes)
Requirements for Point-To-Multipoint Extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol (41178 bytes)
A Link-Type sub-TLV to convey the number of Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths signalled with zero reserved bandwidth across a link (16076 bytes)
Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Management Information Base (MIB) module (131967 bytes)
LDP Typed Wildcard FEC (17775 bytes)
P2MP MPLS-TE Fast Reroute with P2MP Bypass Tunnels (34393 bytes)
LDP Capabilities (27144 bytes)
Node behavior upon originating and receiving Resource ReserVation Protocol (RSVP) Path Error message (14738 bytes)
LDP extension for Inter-Area LSP (28706 bytes)
Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks (140314 bytes)
Non PHP Behavior and out-of-band mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs (16689 bytes)
An Analysis of Scaling Issues in MPLS-TE Core Networks (95446 bytes)
LDP IGP Synchronization (19022 bytes)
"EXP field" renamed to "CoS Field" (21287 bytes)
Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels (39388 bytes)
Request For Comments:
Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS (RFC 2702) (68386 bytes)Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (RFC 3031) (147175 bytes)
MPLS Label Stack Encoding (RFC 3032) (48314 bytes) updated by RFC 3443,RFC 4182
Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks Specification (RFC 3034) (53176 bytes)
MPLS using LDP and ATM VC Switching (RFC 3035) (46463 bytes)
LDP Specification (RFC 3036) (274855 bytes) obsoleted by RFC 5036
VCID Notification over ATM link for LDP (RFC 3038) (39134 bytes)
LDP Applicability (RFC 3037) (13601 bytes)
The Assignment of the Information Field and Protocol Identifier in the Q.2941 Generic Identifier and Q.2957 User-to-user Signaling for the Internet Protocol (RFC 3033) (52188 bytes)
MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism (RFC 3063) (93523 bytes)
Carrying Label Information in BGP-4 (RFC 3107) (16442 bytes)
RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels (RFC 3209) (132264 bytes) updated by RFC 3936,RFC 4420,RFC 4874,RFC 5151
Applicability Statement for Extensions to RSVP for LSP-Tunnels (RFC 3210) (17691 bytes)
LDP State Machine (RFC 3215) (117278 bytes)
LSP Modification Using CR-LDP (RFC 3214) (25453 bytes)
Applicability Statement for CR-LDP (RFC 3213) (14489 bytes) updated by RFC 3468
Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP (RFC 3212) (87591 bytes) updated by RFC 3468
MPLS Support of Differentiated Services (RFC 3270) (137960 bytes)
Framework for IP Multicast in MPLS (RFC 3353) (65860 bytes)
Time to Live (TTL) Processing in MPLS Networks (Updates RFC 3032) (RFC 3443) (18749 bytes) updates RFC 3032
Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) (RFC 3477) (19899 bytes)
Framework for MPLS-based Recovery (RFC 3469) (89331 bytes)
Fault Tolerance for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) (RFC 3479) (115778 bytes)
Graceful Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol (RFC 3478) (29248 bytes)
The MPLS Working Group decision on MPLS signaling protocols (RFC 3468) (22072 bytes) updates RFC 3213,RFC 3212,RFC 3472
Signalling Unnumbered Links in CR-LDP (Constraint-Routing Label Distribution Protocol) (RFC 3480) (17076 bytes)
Applicability Statement for Restart Mechanisms for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) (RFC 3612) (35677 bytes)
Definitions of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management (RFC 3811) (40353 bytes)
Definitions of Managed Objects for the Multiprotocol Label Switching, Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) (RFC 3815) (215916 bytes)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Forwarding Equivalence Class To Next Hop Label Forwarding Entry (FEC-To-NHLFE)Management Information Base (RFC 3814) (87518 bytes)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR)Management Information Base (RFC 3813) (116120 bytes)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Management Information Base (RFC 3812) (136475 bytes)
Maximum Transmission Unit Signalling Extensions for the Label Distribution Protocol (RFC 3988) (18841 bytes)
Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) (RFC 4023) (31696 bytes)
Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels (RFC 4090) (83965 bytes)
Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS Explicit NULL (RFC 4182) (14087 bytes) updates RFC 3032
Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) (RFC 4206) (31965 bytes)
Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering (RFC 4201) (27033 bytes) updates RFC 3471,RFC 3472,RFC 3473
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview (RFC 4221) (70291 bytes)
Traffic Engineering Link Management Information Base (RFC 4220) (104566 bytes)
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label-Controlled ATM and Frame-Relay Management Interface Definition (RFC 4368) (43315 bytes)
Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures (RFC 4379) (116872 bytes) updates RFC 1122
A Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Operations and Management (OAM) (RFC 4378) (23640 bytes)
Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Networks (RFC 4377) (31889 bytes)
Encoding of Attributes for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Establishment Using Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) (RFC 4420) (47235 bytes) updates RFC 3209,RFC 3473
Signaling Requirements for Point to Multipoint Traffic Engineered MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) (RFC 4461) (64542 bytes)
Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object (RFC 4561) (19362 bytes)
Operations and Management (OAM) Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks (RFC 4687) (30486 bytes)
Graceful Restart Mechanism for BGP with MPLS (RFC 4781) (23249 bytes)
Encapsulation of MPLS over Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol Version 3 (RFC 4817) (26538 bytes)
Codepoint Registry for The Flags Field in the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Session Attribute Object (RFC 4859) (7511 bytes)
Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) (RFC 4875) (125394 bytes)
Avoiding Equal Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks (RFC 4928) (18376 bytes)
ICMP Extensions for MultiProtocol Label Switching (RFC 4950) (15091 bytes)
LDP Specification (RFC 5036) (287101 bytes) obsoletes RFC 3036
Experience with the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) (RFC 5037) (13886 bytes)
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Implementation Survey Results (RFC 5038) (46890 bytes)
IETF Secretariat - Please send questions, comments, and/or suggestions to ietf-web@ietf.org.
Return to working group directory. 
