Help us improve your experience.

Let us know what you think.

Do you have time for a two-minute survey?

 

Supported MPLS Standards

 

Junos OS substantially supports the following RFCs and Internet drafts, which define standards for MPLS and traffic engineering.

  • RFC 2858, Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4

  • RFC 3031, Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture

  • RFC 3032, MPLS Label Stack Encoding

  • RFC 3140, Per Hop Behavior Identification Codes

  • RFC 3270, Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated Services

    Only E-LSPs are supported.

  • RFC 3443, Time To Live (TTL) Processing in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks

  • RFC 3478, Graceful Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol

  • RFC 3906, Calculating Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) Routes Over Traffic Engineering Tunnels

  • RFC 4090, Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels

    Node protection in facility backup is not supported.

  • RFC 4124, Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

  • RFC 4182, Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS Explicit NULL

  • RFC 4364, BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)

  • RFC 4379, Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures

  • RFC 4385, Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for Use over an MPLS PSN.

    Supported on MX Series routers with the Channelized OC3/STM1 (Multi-Rate) Circuit Emulation MIC with SFP.

  • RFC 4875, Extensions to RSVP-TE for Point-to-Multipoint TE LSPs

  • RFC 4950, ICMP Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching

  • RFC 5317, Joint Working Team (JWT) Report on MPLS Architectural Considerations for a Transport Profile

  • RFC 5586, MPLS Generic Associated Channel

  • RFC 5654, Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile

    The following capabilities are supported in the Junos OS implementation of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP):

    • MPLS-TP OAM can send and receive packets with GAL and G-Ach, without IP encapsulation.

    • Two unidirectional RSVP LSPs between a pair of routers can be associated with each other to create an associated bidrectional LSP for binding a path for the GAL and G-Ach OAM messages. A single Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) session is established for the associated bidirectional LSP.

  • RFC 5712, MPLS Traffic Engineering Soft Preemption

  • RFC 5718, An In-Band Data Communication Network For the MPLS Transport Profile

  • RFC 5860, Requirements for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS Transport Networks

  • RFC 5884, Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

  • RFC 5921, A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks

  • RFC 5950, Network Management Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks

  • RFC 5951, Network Management Requirements for MPLS-based Transport Networks

  • RFC 5960, MPLS Transport Profile Data Plane Architecture

  • RFC 6215, MPLS Transport Profile User-to-Network and Network-to-Network Interfaces

  • RFC 6291, Guidelines for the Use of the “OAM” Acronym in the IETF.

  • RFC 6370, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Identifiers

  • RFC 6371, Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks.

  • RFC 6372, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Survivability Framework

  • RFC 6373, MPLS-TP Control Plane Framework

  • RFC 6388, Label Distribution Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths

    Only Point-to-Multipoint LSPs are supported.

  • RFC 6424, Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS Tunnels

  • RFC 6425, Detecting Data-Plane Failures in Point-to-Multipoint MPLS - Extensions to LSP Ping

  • RFC 6426, MPLS On-Demand Connectivity Verification and Route Tracing

  • RFC 6428, Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check, and Remote Defect Indication for the MPLS Transport Profile

  • RFC 6510, Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Message Formats for Label Switched Path (LSP) Attributes Objects

  • RFC 7746, Label Switched Path (LSP) Self-Ping

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping-01.txt, Non PHP behavior and Out-of-Band Mapping for RSVP-TE LSPs

The following RFCs and Internet drafts do not define standards, but provide information about MPLS, traffic engineering, and related technologies. The IETF classifies them variously as “Experimental,” “Historic,” or “Informational.”

  • RFC 2547, BGP/MPLS VPNs

  • RFC 2702, Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS

  • RFC 2917, A Core MPLS IP VPN Architecture

  • RFC 3063, MPLS Loop Prevention Mechanism

  • RFC 3208, PGM Reliable Transport Protocol Specification

    Only the network element is supported.

  • RFC 3469, Framework for Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)-based Recovery

  • RFC 3564, Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

  • RFC 4125, Maximum Allocation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

  • RFC 4127, Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

  • Internet draft draft-martini-l2circuit-encap-mpls-11.txt, Encapsulation Methods for Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over IP and MPLS Networks

    Junos OS differs from the Internet draft in the following ways:

    • A packet with a sequence number of 0 is treated as out of sequence.

    • Any packet that does not have the next incremental sequence number is considered out of sequence.

    • When out-of-sequence packets arrive, the expected sequence number for the neighbor is set to the sequence number in the Layer 2 circuit control word.

  • Internet draft draft-martini-l2circuit-trans-mpls-19.txt, Transport of Layer 2 Frames Over MPLS

  • Internet draft draft-raggarwa-mpls-p2mp-te-02.txt, Establishing Point to Multipoint MPLS TE LSPs

    The features discussed in the indicated sections of the draft are not supported:

    • Nonadjacent signaling for branch LSPs (section 7.1)

    • Make-before-break and fast reroute (section 9)

    • LSP hierarchy using point-to-point LSPs (section 10)