Signaled PID When Multiplexing Multiple Payloads over RSVP-TE LSPs draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-00.txt Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems

73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008 Problem Statement There are many deployment scenarios where an RSVP-TE LSP carries multiple payloads, e.g., IPv4 and IPv6 flows on the same LSP. RFC3209 and RFC3471/73 allows signaling for only one payload (L3PID or GPID) carried by the LSP. It gets ambiguous on what Payload value should be signaled in RSVP-TE, when LSP is to carry multiple payloads. This draft documents some use cases that allow multiplexing of multiple payloads. 73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008

73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008 Use Cases Signaled Payload Label for IPV4 Label for IPV6 Other Payloads Optimized for IPv4 Transport IPv4 (0x0800) Unlabeled IPv6 Explicit Null Label Labeled Optimized for IPv6 Transport IPv6 (0x86DD) IPv4 Explicit Null Label Optimized for IPv4 + IPv6 Transport TBA Unlabeled (Use IP version field) Unknown PID Ignore Signaled Payload (TBA) Learned from application using some out-of-band mechanisms 73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008

73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008 Next Steps Looking for comments/ feedback on the document. Would like the document to be accepted as a WG document. 73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008

73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008 Thank You. 73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008