[mpls] Protocol Action: 'Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-04.txt)
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 17 August 2017 17:34 UTC
Return-Path: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAA2120724; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.58.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Cc: draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis@ietf.org, db3546@att.com, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, loa@pi.nu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <150299124623.12415.3901097582922978981.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:34:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/K_GCSs9Knpx_dNCCVPNUMeNBrEg>
Subject: [mpls] Protocol Action: 'Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-04.txt)
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:34:06 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Using BGP to Bind MPLS Labels to Address Prefixes' (draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis-04.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Alvaro Retana, Alia Atlas and Deborah Brungard. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-rfc3107bis/ Technical Summary RFC 3107 specifies encodings and procedures for using BGP to indicate that a particular router has bound either a single MPLS label or a sequence of MPLS labels to a particular address prefix. This is done by sending a BGP UPDATE message whose Network Layer Reachability Information field contains both the prefix and the MPLS label(s), and whose Next Hop field identifies the node at which said prefix is bound to said label(s). Each such UPDATE also advertises a path to the specified prefix, via the specified next hop. Although there are many implementations and deployments of RFC3107, there are a number of issues with [RFC3107] that have impeded interoperability in the past, and may potentially impede interoperability in the future. This document replaces and obsoletes RFC 3107. It defines a new BGP Capability to be used when binding a sequence of labels to a prefix; by using this Capability, the interoperability problems alluded to above can be avoided. This document also removes the unimplemented "Advertising Multiple Routes to a Destination" feature, while specifying how to use RFC 7911 to provide the same functionality. This document also addresses the issue of the how UPDATEs that bind labels to a given prefix interact with UPDATEs that advertise paths to that prefix but do not bind labels to it. However, for backwards compatibility, it declares most of these interactions to be matters of local policy. Working Group Summary The MPLS working group does solidly support this docment, it address well known interoperability problems. We had a good number of people supporting working group adoption and later (in the working last call) supporting publication. The document has also been working group last called in IDR and bess, the support from these groups are also strong. There has been no controversies around this update of RFC 3107. Document Quality We know of several implementations of RFC 3107, thus a very good understanding of the interoperability problems. We also know of intents to implement the updated version. An implementation poll has been started, and as soon as we have new information will update this Shepherd Write-up. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Loa Andersson Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard