Help us improve your experience.

Let us know what you think.

Do you have time for a two-minute survey?

 
 

Supported MPLS Standards

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)

Supported RSVP Standards

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

  • RFC 2205, Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)—Version 1 Functional Specification

  • RFC 2210, The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services

  • RFC 2211, Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element Service

  • RFC 2212, Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service

  • RFC 2215, General Characterization Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements

  • RFC 2745, RSVP Diagnostic Messages

  • RFC 2747, RSVP Cryptographic Authentication (updated by RFC 3097)

  • RFC 2750, RSVP Extensions for Policy Control (RFC is not supported. Fully compliant with devices that support this RFC).

  • RFC 2961, RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions

  • RFC 3097, RSVP Cryptographic Authentication—Updated Message Type Value

  • RFC 3209, RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels

    The Null Service Object for maximum transmission unit (MTU) signaling in RSVP is not supported.

  • RFC 3473, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions

    Only Section 9, “Fault Handling,” is supported.

  • RFC 3477, Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)

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

  • RFC 4203, OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)

    (OSPF extensions can carry traffic engineering information over unnumbered links.)

  • RFC 4558, Node-ID Based Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Hello: A Clarification Statement

  • RFC 4561, Definition of a Record Route Object (RRO) Node-Id Sub-Object

    The RRO node ID subobject is for use in inter-AS link and node protection configurations.

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

  • RFC 5420, Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)

    Only the LSP_ATTRIBUTES object is supported.

  • RFC 7570, Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)

  • RFC 8370, Techniques to Improve the Scalability of RSVP-TE Deployments

  • draft-ietf-mpls-ri-rsvp-frr-05, Refresh Interval Independent FRR Facility Protection

  • draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-shared-labels-09, Signaling RSVP-TE tunnels on a shared MPLS forwarding plane

The following RFCs do not define standards, but provide information about RSVP and related technologies. The IETF classifies them variously as “Experimental” or “Informational.”

  • RFC 2209, Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)—Version 1 Message Processing Rules

  • RFC 2216, Network Element Service Specification Template

  • 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

Supported LDP Standards

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

  • RFC 3212, Constraint-Based LSP Setup using LDP

  • RFC 3478, Graceful Restart Mechanism for Label Distribution Protocol

  • Internet draft draft-napierala-mpls-targeted-mldp-01.txt, Using LDP Multipoint Extensions on Targeted LDP Sessions

The following RFCs do not define standards, but provide information about LDP. The IETF classifies them as “Informational.”

  • RFC 3215, LDP State Machine

  • RFC 5036, LDP Specification

    For the following features described in the indicated sections of the RFC, Junos OS supports one of the possible modes but not the others:

    • Label distribution control (section 2.6.1): Ordered mode is supported, but not Independent mode.

    • Label retention (section 2.6.2): Liberal mode is supported, but not Conservative mode.

    • Label advertisement (section 2.6.3): Both Downstream Unsolicited mode and Downstream on Demand mode are supported.

  • RFC 5283, LDP Extension for Inter-Area Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

  • RFC 5443, LDP IGP Synchronization

  • RFC 5561, LDP Capabilities

  • RFC 6826, Multipoint LDP In-Band Signaling for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths

    Junos OS support limited to point-to-multipoint extensions for LDP.

DiffServ-Aware Traffic Engineering Standards

The following RFCs provide information on DiffServ-aware traffic engineering and multiclass LSPs:

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

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

  • RFC 4124, Protocol Extensions for Support of Differentiated-Service-Aware MPLS Traffic Engineering

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

  • RFC 4127, Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diff-Serv-aware MPLS

These RFCs are available on the IETF website at http://www.ietf.org/.

Supported GMPLS Standards

Junos OS substantially supports the following RFCs and Internet drafts, which define standards for Generalized MPLS (GMPLS).

  • RFC 3471, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description

    Only the following features are supported:

    • Bidirectional LSPs (upstream label only)

    • Control channel separation

    • Generalized label (suggested label only)

    • Generalized label request (bandwidth encoding only)

  • RFC 3473, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions

    Only Section 9, “Fault Handling,” is supported.

  • RFC 4202, Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching

    Only interface switching is supported.

  • RFC 4206, Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE)

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-02.txt, Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signalling in support of Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) (expires January 2005)

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-08.txt, Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Extensions for SONET and SDH Control

    Only S,U,K,L,M-format labels and SONET traffic parameters are supported.

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-10.txt, Link Management Protocol (LMP)

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-12.txt, OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching

    The following sub-TLV types for the Link type, link, value (TLV) are not supported:

    • Link Local/Remote Identifiers (type 11)

    • Link Protection Type (type 14)

    • Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) (type 16)

    The features described in Section 2 of the draft, “Implications on Graceful Restart,” are also not supported.

    The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor (type 15) sub-TLV type is implemented, but only for packet switching.

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-mpls-bundle-04.txt, Link Bundling in MPLS Traffic Engineering

Supported PCEP Standards

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

  • RFC 5440, Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)—Stateful PCE

  • RFC 8231, Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)—Extensions for Stateful PCE

  • RFC 8281, Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)—Extensions PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model

  • Internet draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-07.txt, PCEP Extensions for Stateful PCE

  • Internet draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03.txt, PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model

  • Internet draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-06.txt, PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing

  • Internet draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-02.txt, Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths

  • Internet draft draft-cbrt-pce-stateful-local-protection-01, PCEP Extensions for RSVP-TE Local-Protection with PCE-Stateful (excluding support for bypass LSP mapping)

  • Internet draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-flowspec-05, PCEP Extension for Flow Specification

    The current implementation of this feature does not implement the following sections of the draft:

    • Section 3.1.2—Advertising PCE capabilties in IGP

    • Section 3.2—PCReq and PCRep message

    • Section 7—Most of the flow specifications, except route distinguisher and IPv4 Multicast Flow specifications, are not supported.