<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.19 (Ruby 3.0.2) -->
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt-24" category="exp" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.23.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Svc. Dest. Opt.">The IPv6 VPN Service Destination Option</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-bonica-6man-vpn-dest-opt-24"/>
    <author initials="R." surname="Bonica" fullname="Ron Bonica">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Herndon</city>
          <region>Virginia</region>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>rbonica@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="X." surname="Li" fullname="Xing Li">
      <organization>CERNET Center/Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>PRC</country>
        </postal>
        <email>xing@cernet.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="A." surname="Farrel" fullname="Adrian Farrel">
      <organization>Old Dog Consulting</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>UK</country>
        </postal>
        <email>adrian@olddog.co.uk</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="Y." surname="Kamite" fullname="Yuji Kamite">
      <organization>NTT Communications Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>3-4-1 Shibaura</city>
          <region>Minato-ku</region>
          <country>Japan</country>
        </postal>
        <email>y.kamite@ntt.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="L." surname="Jalil" fullname="Luay Jalil">
      <organization>Verizon</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Richardson</city>
          <region>Texas</region>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>luay.jalil@one.verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="September" day="05"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>6man</workgroup>
    <keyword>IPv6, Destination Option, VPN</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 96?>

<t>This document describes an experiment in which VPN service information is encoded in a new IPv6 Destination Option. The new IPv6 Destination Option is called the VPN Service Option.</t>
      <t>One purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate that the VPN Service Option can be implemented and deployed in a production network.  Another purpose is to demonstrate that the security considerations, described in this document, have been sufficiently addressed.  Finally, this document encourages replication of the experiment.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 102?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Generic Packet Tunneling <xref target="RFC2473"/> allows a router in one network to encapsulate a packet in an IP header and send that packet across the Internet to another router, creating a virtual link. The receiving router removes the outer IP header and forwards the original packet into its own network. One motivation for Generic Packet Tunneling is to provide connectivity between two networks that share a private addressing <xref target="RFC1918"/> <xref target="RFC4193"/> plan but are not connected by direct links.
In this case, all sites in the first network are accessible to all sites in the second network. Likewise, all sites in the second network are accessible to all sites in the first network.</t>
      <t>Virtual Private Networks (VPN) technologies provide additional functionality, allowing network providers to emulate private networks by using shared infrastructure.  For example, assume that red sites and blue sites connect to a provider network. The provider network allows communication among red sites. It also allows communication among blue sites.  However, it prevents communication between red sites and blue sites.</t>
      <t>The IETF has standardized many VPN technologies, including:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) <xref target="RFC6624"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Layer 3 VPN (L3VPN) <xref target="RFC4364"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) <xref target="RFC4761"/><xref target="RFC4762"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Ethernet VPN (EVPN) <xref target="RFC7432"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Pseudowires <xref target="RFC8077"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The VPN technologies mentioned above share the following characteristics:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>An ingress Provider Edge (PE) device tunnels customer data to an egress PE device. A popular tunnel technology for all of these VPN approaches is MPLS where the tunnel header includes an MPLS <xref target="RFC3032"/> service label.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The egress PE removes the tunnel header, exposing the customer data.  It then queries its Forwarding Information Base (FIB) to identify the interface through which the customer data is to be forwarded. The service label, found in the tunnel header, identifies either the outgoing interface or a VPN-specific portion of the FIB that will be used to determine the outgoing interface.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The mechanism described above requires both PE devices (ingress and egress) to support MPLS. It cannot be deployed where one or both of the PEs does not support MPLS.</t>
      <t>This document describes an experiment in which VPN service information is encoded in a new IPv6 Destination Option <xref target="RFC8200"/> called the VPN Service Option. This option will allow VPNs to be deployed between Provider Edge routers that support IPv6 but do not support MPLS.</t>
      <t>One purpose of this experiment is to demonstrate that the VPN Service Option can be implemented and deployed in a production network.  Another purpose is to demonstrate that the security considerations, described in this document, have been sufficiently addressed.  Finally, this document encourages replication of the experiment, so that operational issues can be discovered.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="conventions-and-definitions">
      <name>Conventions and Definitions</name>
      <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      <?line -18?>

</section>
    <section anchor="option">
      <name>The VPN Service Option</name>
      <t>The VPN Service Option is an IPv6 Destination Option encoded following the encoding rules defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>
      <t>The VPN Service Option contains the following fields:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Option Type: 8-bit selector.  VPN Service Option. This field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to RFC3692-style Experiment (0x5E)<xref target="V6MSG"/>.  See Note below.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Opt Data Len - 8-bit unsigned integer.  Length of the option, in
 octets, excluding the Option Type and Option Length fields.  This
 field <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 4.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Option Data - 32-bits.  VPN Service Information:
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>High-order 12 bits: A checksum. The checksum field is the 12 bit one's complement of the one's complement sum of all 16 bit words in the VPN Service Option Pseudo-header (see <xref target="pseudo-header"/>). For purposes of computing the checksum, the value of the checksum is zero.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Low-order 20 bits: Identifies either the outgoing interface or a VPN-specific portion of the FIB that will be used to determine the outgoing interface.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The VPN Service Option <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> appear in a Destination Options header that
precedes an upper-layer header.  It <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> appear in any other extension
header. If VPN Service option appears in appears in another extension header,
the receiver <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> discard the packet.</t>
      <t>NOTE : A single IPv6 Destination Option Type code point is available
in the registry for experimentation.  The low order bits are set to
'11110'.  The highest-order two bits of the Option Type (i.e., the
"act" bits) specify the action taken by a destination node that does
not recognize the option.  For this experiment, these bits are set
to 01 to indicate the required action is to discard the packet.  The
third highest-order bit of the Option Type (i.e., the "chg" bit)
indicates whether the Option Data can be modified in transit.  For
this experiment the bit is set to 0 to indicate that Option Data
cannot be modified along the path between the packet's source and
its destination.  Thus, the Option Type for this experiment is set
to '01011110', i.e., 0x5E.</t>
      <section anchor="pseudo-header">
        <name>VPN Service Option Pseudo-header</name>
        <t><xref target="box-fig"/>  depicts the VPN Service Option Pseudo-header. It is used to calculate the checksum in the VPN Service Option.</t>
        <figure anchor="box-fig">
          <name>Pseudo-header</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
| IPv6 Source Address  |IPv6 Destination Address | Option Data  |
*---------------------------------------------------------------*
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="forwarding-plane-considerations">
      <name>Forwarding Plane Considerations</name>
      <t>The ingress PE encapsulates customer payload in a tunnel header. The tunnel header contains:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>An IPv6 header</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>An optional IPv6 Authentication Header (AH) <xref target="RFC4302"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>An IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>The IPv6 header contains:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Version - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be equal to 6.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Traffic Class - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Flow Label - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Payload Length - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Next Header - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be equal to either Authentication Header (51) or Destination Options (60).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Hop Limit - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Source Address - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. Represents an interface on the ingress PE device.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Destination Address - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. Represents an interface on the egress PE device.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>If the Authentication Header is present, it contains:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Next Header - Defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/>. <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be equal to Destination Options (60) or Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) (50).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Payload Length - Defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Reserved - Defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/>. <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to zero by the sender, and <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> be ignored by the recipient.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Security Parameters Index (SPI) - Defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Sequence Number - Defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Integrity Check Value (ICV) - Defined in <xref target="RFC4302"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>IPsec processing of the AH and ESP headers would occur before the VPN Service Option is available for processing by tunnel egress PE.</t>
      <t>The IPv6 Destination Options Extension Header contains:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Next Header - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> identify the protocol of the customer data.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Hdr Ext Len - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>. <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be equal to 0.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Options - *  Options - Defined in <xref target="RFC8200"/>.  <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain exactly one VPN Service Option as defined in <xref target="option"/> of this document.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="control-plane-considerations">
      <name>Control Plane Considerations</name>
      <t>The FIB can be populated:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>By an operator, using a Command Line Interface (CLI).</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>By a controller, using the Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP) <xref target="RFC5440"/> or the Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) <xref target="RFC6241"/>.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>By the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) <xref target="RFC4271"/> <xref target="RFC4760"/>.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>If the FIB is populated using BGP, BGP creates a Label-FIB (LFIB), exactly as it would if VPN service information were encoded in an MPLS service label. The egress PE queries the LFIB to resolve information contained by the VPN Service Option.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document does not make any IANA requests.</t>
      <t>However, if the experiment described herein succeeds, the authors will reissue this document, to be published on the Standards Track. The reissued document will request an IPv6 Destination Option number.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>IETF VPN technologies assume that PE devices trust one another. If an egress PE processes a VPN Service Option from an untrusted device, VPN boundaries can be breached.</t>
      <t>The following are acceptable methods of risk mitigation:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Authenticate the packet option using the IPv6 Authentication
Header (AH) <xref target="RFC4302"/> or the IPv6 Encapsulating Security Payload
(ESP) Header <xref target="RFC4303"/>. If the ESP Header is used, it encapsulates the entire packet.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Maintain a limited domain.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>All nodes at the edge limited domain maintain Access Control Lists (ACLs) that discard packets that
   satisfy the following criteria:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Contain an IPv6 VPN Service option.</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Contain an IPv6 Destination Address that represents an interface
inside of the secure limited domain.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
The checksum in the VPN Service Option provides some protection against accidental modification of the fields that form the pseudo-header, but it does not provide any additional security for the mechanisms defined in this document. It does provide protection against accidental collisions between experiments as described in Section 8.
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="deployment-considerations">
      <name>Deployment Considerations</name>
      <t>The VPN Service Option is imposed by an ingress PE and processed by an egress PE. It is not processed by any nodes along the delivery path between the ingress PE and egress PE. So, it is safe to deploy the VPN Service Option across the Internet.</t>
      <t>However, some networks discard packets that include IPv6 Destination Options. This is an imediment to deplyment.</t>
      <t>Because the VPN Service Option uses an experimental code point, there is a risk of collisions with other experiments. Specifically, the egress PE may process packets from another experiment that uses the same code point. This risk is mitigated by the VPN Service Option checksum. It is highly unlikely that a packet received from the other experiment will pass checksum validation.</t>
      <t>It is expected that, as with all experiments with IETF protocols, care is taken by the operator to ensure that all nodes participating in an experiment are carefully configured.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="experimental-results">
      <name>Experimental Results</name>
      <t>Parties participating in this experiment should publish experimental results within one year of the publication of this document. Experimental results should address the following:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>Effort required to deploy
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>Was deployment incremental or network-wide?</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Was there a need to synchronize configurations at each node or could nodes be configured independently</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Did the deployment require hardware upgrade?</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Effort required to secure
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>Performance impact</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Effectiveness of risk mitigation with ACLs</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Cost of risk mitigation with ACLs</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Mechanism used to populate the FIB</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Scale of deployment</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Interoperability
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>Did you deploy two inter-operable implementations?</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Did you experience interoperability problems?</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Effectiveness and sufficiency of OAM mechanism
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>Did PING work?</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Did TRACEROUTE work?</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Did Wireshark work?</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Did TCPDUMP work?</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Thanks to Eliot Lear and Mark Smith for their reviews and contributions to this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC4302">
          <front>
            <title>IP Authentication Header</title>
            <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
            <date month="December" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes an updated version of the IP Authentication Header (AH), which is designed to provide authentication services in IPv4 and IPv6. This document obsoletes RFC 2402 (November 1998). [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4302"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4302"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4303">
          <front>
            <title>IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)</title>
            <author fullname="S. Kent" initials="S." surname="Kent"/>
            <date month="December" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes an updated version of the Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocol, which is designed to provide a mix of security services in IPv4 and IPv6. ESP is used to provide confidentiality, data origin authentication, connectionless integrity, an anti-replay service (a form of partial sequence integrity), and limited traffic flow confidentiality. This document obsoletes RFC 2406 (November 1998). [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4303"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4303"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4271">
          <front>
            <title>A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Rekhter"/>
            <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." role="editor" surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="S. Hares" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Hares"/>
            <date month="January" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document discusses the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is an inter-Autonomous System routing protocol.</t>
              <t>The primary function of a BGP speaking system is to exchange network reachability information with other BGP systems. This network reachability information includes information on the list of Autonomous Systems (ASes) that reachability information traverses. This information is sufficient for constructing a graph of AS connectivity for this reachability from which routing loops may be pruned, and, at the AS level, some policy decisions may be enforced.</t>
              <t>BGP-4 provides a set of mechanisms for supporting Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR). These mechanisms include support for advertising a set of destinations as an IP prefix, and eliminating the concept of network "class" within BGP. BGP-4 also introduces mechanisms that allow aggregation of routes, including aggregation of AS paths.</t>
              <t>This document obsoletes RFC 1771. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4271"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4271"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4760">
          <front>
            <title>Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4</title>
            <author fullname="T. Bates" initials="T." surname="Bates"/>
            <author fullname="R. Chandra" initials="R." surname="Chandra"/>
            <author fullname="D. Katz" initials="D." surname="Katz"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." surname="Rekhter"/>
            <date month="January" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines extensions to BGP-4 to enable it to carry routing information for multiple Network Layer protocols (e.g., IPv6, IPX, L3VPN, etc.). The extensions are backward compatible - a router that supports the extensions can interoperate with a router that doesn't support the extensions. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4760"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4760"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6241">
          <front>
            <title>Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)</title>
            <author fullname="R. Enns" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Enns"/>
            <author fullname="M. Bjorklund" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Bjorklund"/>
            <author fullname="J. Schoenwaelder" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Schoenwaelder"/>
            <author fullname="A. Bierman" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Bierman"/>
            <date month="June" year="2011"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in this document provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. It uses an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding for the configuration data as well as the protocol messages. The NETCONF protocol operations are realized as remote procedure calls (RPCs). This document obsoletes RFC 4741. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6241"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6241"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6335">
          <front>
            <title>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry</title>
            <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
            <author fullname="L. Eggert" initials="L." surname="Eggert"/>
            <author fullname="J. Touch" initials="J." surname="Touch"/>
            <author fullname="M. Westerlund" initials="M." surname="Westerlund"/>
            <author fullname="S. Cheshire" initials="S." surname="Cheshire"/>
            <date month="August" year="2011"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines the procedures that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) uses when handling assignment and other requests related to the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number registry. It also discusses the rationale and principles behind these procedures and how they facilitate the long-term sustainability of the registry.</t>
              <t>This document updates IANA's procedures by obsoleting the previous UDP and TCP port assignment procedures defined in Sections 8 and 9.1 of the IANA Allocation Guidelines, and it updates the IANA service name and port assignment procedures for UDP-Lite, the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP), and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP). It also updates the DNS SRV specification to clarify what a service name is and how it is registered. This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="165"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6335"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6335"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8200">
          <front>
            <title>Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification</title>
            <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/>
            <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/>
            <date month="July" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies version 6 of the Internet Protocol (IPv6). It obsoletes RFC 2460.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="86"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8200"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8200"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC1918">
          <front>
            <title>Address Allocation for Private Internets</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." surname="Rekhter"/>
            <author fullname="B. Moskowitz" initials="B." surname="Moskowitz"/>
            <author fullname="D. Karrenberg" initials="D." surname="Karrenberg"/>
            <author fullname="G. J. de Groot" initials="G. J." surname="de Groot"/>
            <author fullname="E. Lear" initials="E." surname="Lear"/>
            <date month="February" year="1996"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes address allocation for private internets. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="5"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1918"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1918"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2473">
          <front>
            <title>Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification</title>
            <author fullname="A. Conta" initials="A." surname="Conta"/>
            <author fullname="S. Deering" initials="S." surname="Deering"/>
            <date month="December" year="1998"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines the model and generic mechanisms for IPv6 encapsulation of Internet packets, such as IPv6 and IPv4. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2473"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2473"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3032">
          <front>
            <title>MPLS Label Stack Encoding</title>
            <author fullname="E. Rosen" initials="E." surname="Rosen"/>
            <author fullname="D. Tappan" initials="D." surname="Tappan"/>
            <author fullname="G. Fedorkow" initials="G." surname="Fedorkow"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." surname="Rekhter"/>
            <author fullname="D. Farinacci" initials="D." surname="Farinacci"/>
            <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="A. Conta" initials="A." surname="Conta"/>
            <date month="January" year="2001"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the encoding to be used by an LSR in order to transmit labeled packets on Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) data links, on LAN data links, and possibly on other data links as well. This document also specifies rules and procedures for processing the various fields of the label stack encoding. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3032"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3032"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3209">
          <front>
            <title>RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels</title>
            <author fullname="D. Awduche" initials="D." surname="Awduche"/>
            <author fullname="L. Berger" initials="L." surname="Berger"/>
            <author fullname="D. Gan" initials="D." surname="Gan"/>
            <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="V. Srinivasan" initials="V." surname="Srinivasan"/>
            <author fullname="G. Swallow" initials="G." surname="Swallow"/>
            <date month="December" year="2001"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3209"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3209"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4193">
          <front>
            <title>Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses</title>
            <author fullname="R. Hinden" initials="R." surname="Hinden"/>
            <author fullname="B. Haberman" initials="B." surname="Haberman"/>
            <date month="October" year="2005"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a site. These addresses are not expected to be routable on the global Internet. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4193"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4193"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4364">
          <front>
            <title>BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)</title>
            <author fullname="E. Rosen" initials="E." surname="Rosen"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." surname="Rekhter"/>
            <date month="February" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a method by which a Service Provider may use an IP backbone to provide IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) for its customers. This method uses a "peer model", in which the customers' edge routers (CE routers) send their routes to the Service Provider's edge routers (PE routers); there is no "overlay" visible to the customer's routing algorithm, and CE routers at different sites do not peer with each other. Data packets are tunneled through the backbone, so that the core routers do not need to know the VPN routes. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4364"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4364"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4761">
          <front>
            <title>Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling</title>
            <author fullname="K. Kompella" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Kompella"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Rekhter" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Rekhter"/>
            <date month="January" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS), also known as Transparent LAN Service and Virtual Private Switched Network service, is a useful Service Provider offering. The service offers a Layer 2 Virtual Private Network (VPN); however, in the case of VPLS, the customers in the VPN are connected by a multipoint Ethernet LAN, in contrast to the usual Layer 2 VPNs, which are point-to-point in nature.</t>
              <t>This document describes the functions required to offer VPLS, a mechanism for signaling a VPLS, and rules for forwarding VPLS frames across a packet switched network. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4761"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4761"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4762">
          <front>
            <title>Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) Signaling</title>
            <author fullname="M. Lasserre" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Lasserre"/>
            <author fullname="V. Kompella" initials="V." role="editor" surname="Kompella"/>
            <date month="January" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) solution using pseudowires, a service previously implemented over other tunneling technologies and known as Transparent LAN Services (TLS). A VPLS creates an emulated LAN segment for a given set of users; i.e., it creates a Layer 2 broadcast domain that is fully capable of learning and forwarding on Ethernet MAC addresses and that is closed to a given set of users. Multiple VPLS services can be supported from a single Provider Edge (PE) node.</t>
              <t>This document describes the control plane functions of signaling pseudowire labels using Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), extending RFC 4447. It is agnostic to discovery protocols. The data plane functions of forwarding are also described, focusing in particular on the learning of MAC addresses. The encapsulation of VPLS packets is described by RFC 4448. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4762"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4762"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6624">
          <front>
            <title>Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks Using BGP for Auto-Discovery and Signaling</title>
            <author fullname="K. Kompella" initials="K." surname="Kompella"/>
            <author fullname="B. Kothari" initials="B." surname="Kothari"/>
            <author fullname="R. Cherukuri" initials="R." surname="Cherukuri"/>
            <date month="May" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Layer 2 Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs) based on Frame Relay or ATM circuits have been around a long time; more recently, Ethernet VPNs, including Virtual Private LAN Service, have become popular. Traditional L2VPNs often required a separate Service Provider infrastructure for each type and yet another for the Internet and IP VPNs. In addition, L2VPN provisioning was cumbersome. This document presents a new approach to the problem of offering L2VPN services where the L2VPN customer's experience is virtually identical to that offered by traditional L2VPNs, but such that a Service Provider can maintain a single network for L2VPNs, IP VPNs, and the Internet, as well as a common provisioning methodology for all services. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6624"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6624"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7432">
          <front>
            <title>BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN</title>
            <author fullname="A. Sajassi" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Sajassi"/>
            <author fullname="R. Aggarwal" initials="R." surname="Aggarwal"/>
            <author fullname="N. Bitar" initials="N." surname="Bitar"/>
            <author fullname="A. Isaac" initials="A." surname="Isaac"/>
            <author fullname="J. Uttaro" initials="J." surname="Uttaro"/>
            <author fullname="J. Drake" initials="J." surname="Drake"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <date month="February" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes procedures for BGP MPLS-based Ethernet VPNs (EVPN). The procedures described here meet the requirements specified in RFC 7209 -- "Requirements for Ethernet VPN (EVPN)".</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7432"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7432"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8660">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing with the MPLS Data Plane</title>
            <author fullname="A. Bashandy" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Bashandy"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="S. Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi"/>
            <author fullname="B. Decraene" initials="B." surname="Decraene"/>
            <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
            <author fullname="R. Shakir" initials="R." surname="Shakir"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) leverages the source-routing paradigm. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions, called segments, by prepending the packet with an SR header. In the MPLS data plane, the SR header is instantiated through a label stack. This document specifies the forwarding behavior to allow instantiating SR over the MPLS data plane (SR-MPLS).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8660"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8660"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8665">
          <front>
            <title>OSPF Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="P. Psenak" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Psenak"/>
            <author fullname="S. Previdi" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Previdi"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="H. Gredler" initials="H." surname="Gredler"/>
            <author fullname="R. Shakir" initials="R." surname="Shakir"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).</t>
              <t>This document describes the OSPFv2 extensions required for Segment Routing.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8665"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8665"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8666">
          <front>
            <title>OSPFv3 Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="P. Psenak" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Psenak"/>
            <author fullname="S. Previdi" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Previdi"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological subpaths called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).</t>
              <t>This document describes the OSPFv3 extensions required for Segment Routing with the MPLS data plane.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8666"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8666"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8667">
          <front>
            <title>IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="S. Previdi" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Previdi"/>
            <author fullname="L. Ginsberg" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Ginsberg"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="A. Bashandy" initials="A." surname="Bashandy"/>
            <author fullname="H. Gredler" initials="H." surname="Gredler"/>
            <author fullname="B. Decraene" initials="B." surname="Decraene"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).</t>
              <t>This document describes the IS-IS extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8667"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8667"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8077">
          <front>
            <title>Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)</title>
            <author fullname="L. Martini" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Martini"/>
            <author fullname="G. Heron" initials="G." role="editor" surname="Heron"/>
            <date month="February" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Layer 2 services (such as Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode, and Ethernet) can be emulated over an MPLS backbone by encapsulating the Layer 2 Protocol Data Units (PDUs) and then transmitting them over pseudowires (PWs). It is also possible to use pseudowires to provide low-rate Time-Division Multiplexed and Synchronous Optical NETworking circuit emulation over an MPLS-enabled network. This document specifies a protocol for establishing and maintaining the pseudowires, using extensions to the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). Procedures for encapsulating Layer 2 PDUs are specified in other documents.</t>
              <t>This document is a rewrite of RFC 4447 for publication as an Internet Standard.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="STD" value="84"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8077"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8077"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="V6MSG">
          <front>
            <title>Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters: Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options</title>
            <author>
              <organization>Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)</organization>
            </author>
            <date/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Web" value="https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
