doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc7358.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc7358.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fbf194e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc7358.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                           K. Raza
+Request for Comments: 7358                                    S. Boutros
+Updates: 3212, 4447, 5036, 5918, 6388, 7140                   L. Martini
+Category: Standards Track                            Cisco Systems, Inc.
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                               N. Leymann
+                                                        Deutsche Telekom
+                                                            October 2014
+
+
+                     Label Advertisement Discipline
+             for LDP Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs)
+
+Abstract
+
+   The label advertising behavior of an LDP speaker for a given
+   Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) is governed by the FEC type and
+   not necessarily by the LDP session's negotiated label advertisement
+   mode.  This document updates RFC 5036 to make that fact clear.  It
+   also updates RFCs 3212, 4447, 5918, 6388, and 7140 by specifying the
+   label advertisement mode for all currently defined LDP FEC types.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7358.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2014 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. Label Advertisement Discipline ..................................3
+      2.1. Update to RFC 5036 .........................................3
+      2.2. Specification for LDP FECs .................................4
+   3. Security Considerations .........................................4
+   4. IANA Considerations .............................................4
+   5. References ......................................................6
+      5.1. Normative References .......................................6
+      5.2. Informative References .....................................7
+   Acknowledgments ....................................................8
+   Authors' Addresses .................................................8
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] allows label
+   advertisement mode negotiation at the time of session establishment.
+   The LDP specification also dictates that only a single label
+   advertisement mode be negotiated, agreed upon, and used for a given
+   LDP session between two Label Switching Routers (LSRs).
+
+   The negotiated label advertisement mode defined in RFC 5036 and
+   carried in the LDP Initialization message is only indicative.  It
+   indicates how the LDP speakers on a session will advertise labels for
+   some Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs), but it is not a rule that
+   restricts the speakers to behave in a specific way.  Furthermore, for
+   some FEC types the advertising behavior of the LDP speaker is
+   governed by the FEC type and not by the negotiated behavior.
+
+   This document updates [RFC5036] to make that fact clear.  It also
+   updates [RFC3212], [RFC4447], [RFC5918], [RFC6388], and [RFC7140] to
+   indicate, for each FEC type that has already been defined, whether
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+   the label binding advertisements for the FEC are constrained by the
+   negotiated label advertisement mode or not.  Furthermore, this
+   document specifies the label advertisement mode to be used for all
+   currently defined FECs.
+
+2.  Label Advertisement Discipline
+
+   To remove any ambiguity and conflict regarding a label advertisement
+   discipline among different FEC types sharing a common LDP session,
+   this document specifies a label advertisement discipline for FEC
+   types.
+
+   This document introduces the following types for specifying a label
+   advertisement discipline for a FEC type:
+
+      -  DU (Downstream Unsolicited)
+      -  DoD (Downstream on Demand)
+      -  As negotiated (DU or DoD)
+      -  Upstream ([RFC6389])
+      -  Not applicable
+      -  Unknown
+
+2.1.  Update to RFC 5036
+
+   Section 3.5.3 of [RFC5036] is updated to add the following two
+   statements under the description of "A, Label Advertisement
+   Discipline":
+
+   -  Each document defining an LDP FEC must state the applicability of
+      the negotiated label advertisement discipline for label binding
+      advertisements for that FEC.  If the negotiated label
+      advertisement discipline does not apply to the FEC, the document
+      must also explicitly state the discipline to be used for the FEC.
+
+   -  This document defines the label advertisement discipline for the
+      following FEC types:
+
+         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+
+         | FEC Type | FEC Name | Label Advertisement Discipline |
+         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+
+         | 0x01     | Wildcard | Not applicable                 |
+         | 0x02     | Prefix   | As negotiated (DU or DoD)      |
+         +----------+----------+--------------------------------+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+2.2.  Specification for LDP FECs
+
+   The label advertisement discipline for currently defined LDP FEC
+   types is listed in Section 4.
+
+   This document updates the respective RFCs in which these FECs are
+   introduced and defined.
+
+3.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document only clarifies the applicability of an LDP session's
+   label advertisement mode and hence does not add any LDP security
+   mechanics and considerations to those already defined in the LDP
+   specification [RFC5036].
+
+4.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document mandates the specification of a label advertisement
+   discipline for each defined FEC type and hence IANA's "Forwarding
+   Equivalence Class (FEC) Type Name Space" registry under IANA's "Label
+   Distribution Protocol (LDP) Parameters" registry has been extended as
+   follows:
+
+   -  Added a new column titled "Label Advertisement Discipline" with
+      the following possible values:
+
+         o  DU
+         o  DoD
+         o  As negotiated (DU or DoD)
+         o  Upstream
+         o  Not applicable
+         o  Unknown
+
+   -  Made this document an additional reference for the registry itself
+      and for all affected registrations.
+
+   -  Kept other columns of the registry in place and populated as they
+      were.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+   For the currently assigned FEC types, the updated registry looks
+   like:
+
+   +=====+====+===============+==============+===========+============+
+   |Value|Hex | Name          |Label         | Reference |Notes/      |
+   |     |    |               |Advertisement |           |Registration|
+   |     |    |               |Discipline    |           |Date        |
+   +=====+====+===============+==============+===========+============+
+   | 0   |0x00|Reserved       |              |           |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 1   |0x01|Wildcard       |Not applicable| [RFC5036] |            |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 2   |0x02|Prefix         |As negotiated | [RFC5036] |            |
+   |     |    |               |(DU or DoD)   | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 4   |0x04|CR-LSP         |DoD           | [RFC3212] |            |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 5   |0x05|Typed Wildcard |Not applicable| [RFC5918] |            |
+   |     |    |FEC Element    |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 6   |0x06|P2MP           |DU            | [RFC6388] |            |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 7   |0x07|MP2MP-up       |DU            | [RFC6388] |            |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 8   |0x08|MP2MP-down     |DU            | [RFC6388] |            |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 9   |0x09|HSMP-upstream  |DU            | [RFC7140] | 2014-01-09 |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 10  |0x0A|HSMP-downstream|DU, Upstream  | [RFC7140] | 2014-01-09 |
+   |     |    |               |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 128 |0x80|PWid           |DU            | [RFC4447] |            |
+   |     |    |FEC Element    |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 129 |0x81|Generalized    |DU            | [RFC4447] |            |
+   |     |    |PWid           |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 130 |0x82|P2MP PW        |Upstream      | [P2MP-PW] | 2009-06-03 |
+   |     |    |Upstream       |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 131 |0x83|Protection     |DU            |[FAST-PROT]| 2010-02-26 |
+   |     |    |FEC Element    |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+   | 132 |0x84|P2MP PW        |DU            | [P2MP-PW] | 2014-04-04 |
+   |     |    |Downstream     |              | [RFC7358] |            |
+   |     |    |FEC Element    |              |           |            |
+   +-----+----+---------------+--------------+-----------+------------+
+
+5.  References
+
+5.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC3212]   Jamoussi, B., Ed., Andersson, L., Callon, R., Dantu, R.,
+               Wu, L., Doolan, P., Worster, T., Feldman, N., Fredette,
+               A., Girish, M., Gray, E., Heinanen, J., Kilty, T., and A.
+               Malis, "Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212,
+               January 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3212>.
+
+   [RFC4447]   Martini, L., Ed., Rosen, E., El-Aawar, N., Smith, T., and
+               G. Heron, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the
+               Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006,
+               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4447>.
+
+   [RFC5036]   Andersson, L., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., and B. Thomas, Ed.,
+               "LDP Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007,
+               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5036>.
+
+   [RFC5918]   Asati, R., Minei, I., and B. Thomas, "Label Distribution
+               Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
+               (FEC)", RFC 5918, August 2010,
+               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5918>.
+
+   [RFC6388]   Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Minei, I., Ed., Kompella, K., and B.
+               Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for
+               Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label
+               Switched Paths", RFC 6388, November 2011,
+               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6388>.
+
+   [RFC6389]   Aggarwal, R. and JL. Le Roux, "MPLS Upstream Label
+               Assignment for LDP", RFC 6389, November 2011,
+               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6389>.
+
+   [RFC7140]   Jin, L., Jounay, F., Wijnands, IJ., and N. Leymann, "LDP
+               Extensions for Hub and Spoke Multipoint Label Switched
+               Path", RFC 7140, March 2014,
+               <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7140>.
+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+5.2.  Informative References
+
+   [FAST-PROT] Shen, Y., Aggarwal, R., Henderickx, W., and Y. Jiang,
+               "PW Endpoint Fast Failure Protection", Work in Progress,
+               draft-ietf-pwe3-endpoint-fast-protection-01, July 2014.
+
+   [P2MP-PW]   Sivabalan, S., Ed., Boutros, S., Ed., Martini, L.,
+               Konstantynowicz, M., Del Vecchio, G., Nadeau, T., Jounay,
+               F., Niger, P., Kamite, Y., Jin, L., Vigoureux, M.,
+               Ciavaglia, L., Delord, S., and K. Raza, "Signaling
+               Root-Initiated Point-to-Multipoint Pseudowire using LDP",
+               Work in Progress, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-04, March 2012.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 7358          Label Advert. Discipline for LDP FECs     October 2014
+
+
+Acknowledgments
+
+   We acknowledge Eric Rosen and Rajiv Asati for their initial review
+   and input on the document.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Kamran Raza
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   2000 Innovation Drive
+   Ottawa, ON K2K-3E8
+   Canada
+
+   EMail: skraza@cisco.com
+
+
+   Sami Boutros
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   3750 Cisco Way
+   San Jose, CA  95134
+   United States
+
+   EMail: sboutros@cisco.com
+
+
+   Luca Martini
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   9155 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 400
+   Englewood, CO  80112
+   United States
+
+   EMail: lmartini@cisco.com
+
+
+   Nicolai Leymann
+   Deutsche Telekom AG
+   Winterfeldtstrasse 21
+   Berlin 10781
+   Germany
+
+   EMail: N.Leymann@telekom.de
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Raza, et al.                 Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+