One document matched: draft-gredler-isis-label-advertisement-00.txt
IS-IS for IP Internets H. Gredler, Ed.
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track S. Amante
Expires: October 05, 2013 Level 3 Communications, Inc.
T. Scholl
Amazon
L. Jalil
Verizon
April 5, 2013
Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS
draft-gredler-isis-label-advertisement-00
Abstract
Historically MPLS label distribution was driven by protocols like
LDP, RSVP and LBGP. All of those protocols are session oriented. In
order to obtain label binding for a given destination FEC from a
given router one needs first to establish an LDP/RSVP/LBGP session
with that router.
Advertising MPLS labels in IGPs advertisement [I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-
label-advertisement] describes several use cases where utilizing the
flooding machinery of link-state protocols for MPLS label
distribution allows to obtain the binding without requiring to
establish an LDP/RSVP/LBGP session with that router.
This document describes the protocol extension to distribute MPLS
labels by the IS-IS protocol.
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 October 05, 2013.
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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 (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. Motivation, Rationale and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Issue: Bi-directionality semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Issue: IP path semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Issue: Lack of 'path' notion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. MPLS label TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. subTLV support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. IPv6 Prefix ERO subTLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Prefix ERO subTLV path semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Advertising Label Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Sample Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Transport IP addresses and router-IDs . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Link IP addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router using a specific link . 9
4.4. Advertisement of an RSVP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. Advertisement of an LDP LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.6. Interarea advertisement of diverse paths . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Inter Area Protocol Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Data plane operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Control plane operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
MPLS label allocations are predominantly distributed by using the LDP
[RFC5036], RSVP [RFC5151] or labeled BGP [RFC3107] protocol. All of
those protocols have in common that they are session oriented, which
means that in order to obtain label binding for a given destination
FEC from a given router one needs first to establish a direct control
plane (LDP/RSVP/LBGP) session with that router.
There are a couple of use cases [I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-
advertisement] where the consumer of a MPLS label binding may not be
adjacent to the router that performs the binding. Bringing up an
explicit session using the existing label distribution protocols
between the non-adjacent router that bind the label and the router
that acts as a consumer of this binding is the existing remedy for
this dilemma.
This document describes a single IS-IS protocol extension which
allows routers to advertise MPLS label bindings within and beyond an
IGP domain, and controlling inter-area distribution.
2. Motivation, Rationale and Applicability
One possible way of distributing MPLS labels using IS-IS has been
described in Segment Routing [I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-
routing]. The authors propose to re-use the IS-Reach TLVs (22, 23,
222) and Extended IP Prefix TLVs (135, 236) for carrying the label
information. While retrofitting existing protocol machinery for new
purposes is generally a good thing, Segment Routing [I-D.previdi-
filsfils-isis-segment-routing] falls short of addressing some use-
cases defined in [I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement].
The dominant issue around re-using IS-Reach TLVs and the extended IP
Prefix TLVs is that both family of TLVs have existing protocol
semantics, which might not be well suitable to advertising MPLS label
switched paths in a generic fashion. These are specifically:
o Bi-directionality semantics
o IP path semantics
o Lack of 'path' notion
2.1. Issue: Bi-directionality semantics
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
'Bi-directionality semantics', affects the complexity around
advertisement of unidirectional LSPs. Label advertisement of per-
link labels or 'Adj-SIDs' [I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]
is done using IS-reach TLVs. Usually implementations need to have an
adjacency in 'Up' state prior to advertising this adjacency as IS-
reach TLV in its Link State PDUs (LSPs). In order to advertise a
per-link LSP an implementation first needs to have an adjacency,
which only transitions to 'Up' state after passing the 3-way check.
This implies bi-directionality. If an implementation wants to
advertise per-link LSPs to e.g. outside the IGP domain then it would
need to fake-up an adjacency. Changing existing IGP Adjacency code
to support such cases defeats the purpose of re-using existing
functionality as there is not much common functionality to be shared.
2.2. Issue: IP path semantics
LSPs pointing to a Node are advertised as 'Node-SIDs' [I-D.previdi-
filsfils-isis-segment-routing] using the family of extended IP Reach
TLVs. That means that in order to advertise a LSP, one is inheriting
the semantics of advertising an IP path. Consider router A has got
existing LSPs to its entire one-hop neighborhood and is re-
advertising those LSPs using IP reachability semantics. Now we have
two exact matching IP advertisements. One from the owning router
(router B) which advertises its stable transport loopback address and
another one from router A re-advertising a LSP path to router B.
Existing routing software may get confused now as the 'stable
transport' address shows up from multiple places in the network and
more worse the IP forwarding path for control-plane protocols may get
mingled with the MPLS data plane.
2.3. Issue: Lack of 'path' notion
Both IS-Reach TLVs and IP Prefix Reachability TLVs have a limited
semantics describing MPLS label-switched paths in the sense of a
'path'. Both encoding formats allow to specify a pointer to some
specific router, but not to describe a MPLS label switched path
containing all of its path segments. [I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-
segment-routing] allows to define 'Forwarding Adjacencies' as per
[RFC4206]. The way to describe a path of a given forwarding
adjacency is to carry a list of "Segment IDs". That implies that
nodes which do not yet participate in 'Segment routing' or are
outside of a 'Segment routing' domain can not be expressed using
those path semantics.
A protocol for advertising MPLS label switched paths, should be
generic enough to express paths sourced by existing MPLS LSPs, such
that ingress routers can flexibly combine them according to
application needs.
2.4. Motivation
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
IGP advertisement of MPLS label switched paths requires a new set of
protocol semantics (path paradigm), which hardly can be expressed
using the existing IS-IS protocol. This document describes IS-IS
protocol extensions which allows generic advertisement of MPLS label
switched paths in IS-IS.
3. MPLS label TLV
The MPLS Label TLV may be originated by any Traffic Engineering
[RFC5305] capable router in an IS-IS domain. A router may advertise
MPLS labels along with so called 'ERO' path segments describing the
label switched path. Since ERO style path notation allows to express
pointers to link and node IP addresses any label switched path,
sourced by any protocol can be described.
Due to the limited size of subTLV space (See [RFC5311] section 4.5
for details), The MPLS Label TLV has cumulative rather than canceling
semantics. If a router originates more than one MPLS Label TLV with
the same Label value, then the subTLVs of the second, third, etc.
TLV are accumulated. Since some subTLVs represent an ordered set
(e.g. ERO subTLVs) and in order to not complicate the cross-fragment
tracking logic, all subTLVs for a given label value MUST be present
in a single IS-IS fragment.
The MPLS Label TLV has type 149 and 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U|R|R|R| MPLS Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
o 4 bits of flags, consisting of:
* 1 bit of up/down information (U bit)
* 3 bits are reserved for future use
o 20 bits of MPLS label information
o 0-252 octets of sub-TLVs, where each sub-TLV consists of a
sequence of:
* 1 octet of sub-TLV type
* 1 octet of length of the value field of the sub-TLV
* 0-250 octets of value
3.1. Flags
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
Flags
Up/Down Bit: A router may flood MPLS label information across
level boundaries. In order to prevent flooding loops, a router
will Set the Up/Down (U-Bit) when propagating from Level 2 down to
Level 1. This is done as per the procedures for IP Prefixes lined
out in [RFC5302].
3.2. subTLV support
An originating router MAY want to attach one or more subTLVs to the
MPLS label TLV. SubTLVs presence is inferred from the length of the
MPLS Label TLV. If the MPLS Label TLV Length field is > 3 octets
then one or more subTLVs may be present.
3.3. IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV
The IPv4 ERO subTLV (Type 1) describes a path segment using IPv4
Prefix style of encoding. Its appearance and semantics have been
borrowed from Section 4.3.3.2 [RFC3209].
The 'Prefix Length' field contains the length of the prefix in bits.
Only the most significant octets of the prefix are encoded. I.e. 1
octet for prefix length 1 up to 8, 2 octets for prefix length 9 to
16, 3 octets for prefix length 17 up to 24 and 4 octets for prefix
length 25 up to 32, etc.
The 'L' bit in the subTLV is a one-bit attribute. If the L bit is
set, then the value of the attribute is 'loose.' Otherwise, the
value of the attribute is 'strict.'
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Prefix Length | IPv4 Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Prefix (continued, variable-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.4. IPv6 Prefix ERO subTLV
The IPv6 ERO subTLV (Type 2) describes a path segment using IPv6
Prefix style of encoding. Its appearance and semantics have been
borrowed from Section 4.3.3.3 [RFC3209].
The 'Prefix Length' field contains the length of the prefix in bits.
Only the most significant octets of the prefix are encoded. I.e. 1
octet for prefix length 1 up to 8, 2 octets for prefix length 9 to
16, 3 octets for prefix length 17 up to 24 and 4 octets for prefix
length 25 up to 32, ...., 16 octets for prefix length 113 up to 128.
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
The 'L' bit in the subTLV is a one-bit attribute. If the L bit is
set, then the value of the attribute is 'loose.' Otherwise, the
value of the attribute is 'strict.'
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|L| Type | Length | Prefix Length | IPv6 Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix (continued) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv6 Prefix (continued, variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.5. Prefix ERO subTLV path semantics
All 'Prefix ERO' information represents an ordered set which
describes the segments of a label-switched path. The last Prefix ERO
subTLV describes the segment closest to the egress point of the LSP.
Contrary the first Prefix ERO subTLV describes the first segment of a
label switched path. If a router extends or stitches a label
switched path it MUST prepend the new segments path information to
the Prefix ERO list.
4. Advertising Label Examples
4.1. Sample Topology
The following topology (Figure 4) and IP addresses shall be used
throughout the Label advertisement examples.
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
AS1 : AS 2
:
: :
Level 1 : Level 2 :
: :
+-----+ +-----+-IP3--IP4--+-----+ :
| R1 +-IP1--IP2--+ R2 | | R3 | :
+--+--+ +--+--+-IP5--IP6--+--+--+-IP15-IP16-
| | | : \
IP3 IP7 IP13 : +--+--+
| | | : | R7 |
IP4 IP8 IP14 : +--+--+
| | | : /
+--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+-IP17-IP18-
| R4 +-IP19-IP20-+ R5 |-IP11-IP12-| R6 | :
+-----+ +-----+ +-----+ :
: :
: :
: :
4.1.1. Transport IP addresses and router-IDs
o R1: 192.168.1.1
o R2: 192.168.1.2
o R3: 192.168.1.3
o R4: 192.168.1.4
o R5: 192.168.1.5
o R6: 192.168.1.6
o R7: 192.168.1.7
4.1.2. Link IP addresses
o R1 to R2 link: 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2
o R1 to R4 link: 10.0.0.3, 10.0.0.4
o R2 to R3 link #1: 10.0.0.3, 10.0.0.4
o R2 to R3 link #2: 10.0.0.5, 10.0.0.6
o R2 to R5 link: 10.0.0.7, 10.0.0.8
o R3 to R6 link: 10.0.0.13, 10.0.0.14
o R3 to R7 link: 10.0.0.15, 10.0.0.16
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
o R4 to R5 link: 10.0.0.19, 10.0.0.20
o R5 to R6 link: 10.0.0.11, 10.0.0.12
o R6 to R7 link: 10.0.0.17, 10.0.0.18
4.2. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router
If R1 would advertise a label <N> bound to a one-hop LSP from R1 to
R2 it would encode as follows:
TLV 149: MPLS label N, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.2/32, Strict
4.3. One-hop LSP to an adjacent Router using a specific link
If R2 would advertise a label <N>bound to a one-hop LSP from R2 to
R3, using the link #2 it would encode as follows
TLV 149: MPLS label <N>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 10.0.0.6/32, Strict
4.4. Advertisement of an RSVP LSP
Consider a RSVP LSP name "R2-to-R6" traversing (R2 to R3 using link
#1, R6):
If R2 would advertise a label <N> bound to the RSVP LSP named
'R2-to-R6', it would encode as follows
TLV 149: MPLS label <N>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 10.0.0.4/32, Strict
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.6/32, Strict
4.5. Advertisement of an LDP LSP
Consider R2 that creates a LDP label binding for FEC 172.16.0.0./12
using label <N>.
If R2 would re-advertise this binding in IS-IS it would encode as
follows
TLV 149: MPLS label <N>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 172.16.0.0/12, Loose
4.6. Interarea advertisement of diverse paths
Consider two R2->R6 paths: {R2, R3, R6} and {R2, R5, R6}
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
Consider two R5->R3 paths: {R5, R2, R3} and {R5, R6, R3}
R2 encodes its two paths to R6 as follows:
TLV 149: MPLS label <N1>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.3, Strict
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.6, Strict
TLV 149: MPLS label <N2>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.5, Strict
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.6, Strict
R5 encodes its two paths to R3 as follows:
TLV 149: MPLS label <N1>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.2, Strict
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.3, Strict
TLV 149: MPLS label <N2>, Flags {}:
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.6, Strict
IPv4 Prefix ERO subTLV: 192.168.1.3, Strict
A receiving L1 router does see now all 4 paths and may decide to
load-balance across all or a subset of them.
5. Inter Area Protocol Procedures
5.1. Applicability
Propagation of a MPLS LSP across a level boundary is a local policy
decision.
5.2. Data plane operations
If local policy dictates that a given L1L2 router needs to re-
advertise a MPLS LSPs from one Level to another then it MUST allocate
a new label and program its label forwarding table to connect the new
label to the path in the respective other level. Depending on how to
reach the re-advertised LSP, this is typically done using a MPLS
'SWAP' or 'SWAP/PUSH' data plane operation.
5.3. Control plane operations
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
If local policy dictates that a given L1L2 router needs to re-
advertise a MPLS LSPs from one Level to another then it must prepend
its "Traffic-Engineering-ID" as a loose hop in the Prefix ERO subTLV
list.
6. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Yakov Rekhter for his useful comments.
7. IANA Considerations
This documents request allocation for the following TLVs and subTLVs.
+-----+------------+-----------------+------+---------+------------+
| PDU | TLV | subTLV | Type | subType | #Occurence |
+-----+------------+-----------------+------+---------+------------+
| LSP | MPLS Label | | 149 | | >=0 |
| | | IPv4 Prefix ERO | | 1 | >=0 |
| | | IPv6 Prefix ERO | | 2 | >=0 |
+-----+------------+-----------------+------+---------+------------+
The MPLS Label TLV requires a new sub-registry. Type value 149 has
been assigned, with a starting sub-TLV value of 1, range from 1-127,
and managed by Expert Review.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any change in terms of IS-IS
security. It simply proposes to flood MPLS label information via the
IGP. All existing procedures to ensure message integrity do apply
here.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3107] Rekhter, Y. and E. Rosen, "Carrying Label Information in
BGP-4", RFC 3107, May 2001.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001.
[RFC4206] Kompella, K. and Y. Rekhter, "Label Switched Paths (LSP)
Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)", RFC 4206, October 2005.
[RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I. and B. Thomas, "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
[RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ayyangar, A. and JP. Vasseur, "Inter-Domain
MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation
Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC
5151, February 2008.
[RFC5302] Li, T., Smit, H. and T. Przygienda, "Domain-Wide Prefix
Distribution with Two-Level IS-IS", RFC 5302, October
2008.
[RFC5305] Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic
Engineering", RFC 5305, October 2008.
[RFC5311] McPherson, D., Ginsberg, L., Previdi, S. and M. Shand,
"Simplified Extension of Link State PDU (LSP) Space for
IS-IS", RFC 5311, February 2009.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement]
Gredler, H., Amante, S., Scholl, T. and L. Jalil,
"Advertising MPLS labels in IGPs", Internet-Draft draft-
gredler-rtgwg-igp-label-advertisement-03, April 2013.
[I-D.previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Horneffer, M.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Milojevic, I., Shakir, R.,
Ytti, S., Henderickx, W. and J. Tantsura, "Segment Routing
with IS-IS Routing Protocol", Internet-Draft draft-
previdi-filsfils-isis-segment-routing-02, March 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Hannes Gredler, editor
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: hannes@juniper.net
Shane Amante
Level 3 Communications, Inc.
1025 Eldorado Blvd
Broomfield, CO 80021
US
Email: shane@level3.net
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Advertising MPLS labels in IS-IS April 2013
Tom Scholl
Amazon
Seattle, WN
US
Email: tscholl@amazon.com
Luay Jalil
Verizon
1201 E Arapaho Rd.
Richardson, TX 75081
US
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Gredler, Amante, Scholl Expires October 05, 2013 [Page 13]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 15:22:24 |