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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008
Thank You.
73th IETF, MPLS WG, Minneapolis, MN, USA November 2008