Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Chen
Request for Comments: 6829 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Updates: 4379 P. Pan
Category: Standards Track Infinera
ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Pignataro
R. Asati
Cisco
January 2013
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Chen
Request for Comments: 6829 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Updates: 4379 P. Pan
Category: Standards Track Infinera
ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Pignataro
R. Asati
Cisco
January 2013
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) Advertised over IPv6
IPv6上公布的伪线转发等价类（FEC）的标签交换路径（LSP）Ping
Abstract
摘要
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate data-plane failures in all MPLS LSPs, including LSPs used for each direction of an MPLS Pseudowire (PW). However, the LSP Ping and traceroute elements used for PWs are not specified for IPv6 address usage.
多协议标签交换（MPLS）标签交换路径（LSP）Ping和跟踪路由机制通常用于检测和隔离所有MPLS LSP中的数据平面故障，包括用于MPLS伪线（PW）每个方向的LSP。但是，用于PWs的LSP Ping和traceroute元素未指定用于IPv6地址使用。
This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so they can be used with PWs that are set up and maintained using IPv6 LDP sessions. This document updates RFC 4379.
本文档扩展了PW LSP Ping和traceroute机制，因此它们可以与使用IPv6 LDP会话设置和维护的PW一起使用。本文件更新了RFC 4379。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6829.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6829.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be used to detect data-plane failures in all MPLS LSPs, including Pseudowires (PWs). However, the PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements are not specified for IPv6 address usage.
[RFC4379]中定义了多协议标签交换（MPLS）标签交换路径（LSP）Ping和跟踪路由。这些机制可用于检测所有MPLS LSP（包括伪线（PW））中的数据平面故障。但是，未为IPv6地址使用指定PW LSP Ping和traceroute元素。
Specifically, the PW Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Ping and traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge (PE) routers and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 addresses. Three PW-related Target FEC sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated, FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the source and destination addresses of the LDP session, and currently only an IPv4 LDP session is covered. Despite
具体而言，LSP Ping和traceroute机制中目标FEC堆栈的PW转发等价类（FEC）子TLV仅为IPv4提供商边缘（PE）路由器定义，不适用于PE使用IPv6地址的情况。目前定义了三个PW相关的目标FEC子TLV（FEC 128伪线已弃用、FEC 128伪线电流和FEC 129伪线，见[RFC4379]第3.2.8节至第3.2.10节）。这些子TLV包含LDP会话的源地址和目标地址，目前仅涵盖IPv4 LDP会话。即使
the fact that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields or calculating the length of the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 LDP session is used, these existing sub-TLVs cannot be used since the addresses will not fit. Additionally, all other sub-TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not the PW sub-TLVs.
PE IP地址族在子TLV定义中不明确，这一事实可以通过检查发送方/远程PE地址字段的长度或计算子TLV的长度间接推断出来（见[RFC4379]第3.2节）。当使用IPv6 LDP会话时，这些现有的子TLV将无法使用，因为这些地址不适合。此外，所有其他子TLV成对定义，一个用于IPv4，另一个用于IPv6，但不包括PW子TLV。
This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain the existing PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions and extends the PW LSP Ping to IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses). This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to indicate "IPv4" and also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV and FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV) to extend the application of PW LSP Ping and traceroute to IPv6 usage when an IPv6 LDP session [MPLS-LDP] is used to signal the Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined for IPv6 in this document.
本文档更新了[RFC4379]以明确约束IPv4 LDP会话的现有PW FEC子TLV，并将PW LSP Ping扩展到IPv6 LDP会话（即，当IPv6 LDP会话用于向PW发送信号时，发送方和接收方的IP地址为IPv6地址）。这是通过重命名现有的PW子TLV来表示“IPv4”，并通过定义两个新的目标FEC子TLV（FEC 128伪线IPv6子TLV和FEC 129伪线IPv6子TLV）来实现的，以在使用IPv6 LDP会话[MPLS-LDP]向伪线发送信号时，将PW LSP Ping和跟踪路由的应用扩展到IPv6使用。请注意，本文档中没有为IPv6定义FEC 128伪线（已弃用）。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Sections 4 and 6. This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion and to clarify that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses. Note that the changes are limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic changes.
本文件更新了[RFC4379]第3.2节和第3.2.8至3.2.10节，如下所示，以及第4节和第6节所示。这样做是为了避免任何潜在的歧义和混淆，并澄清这些TLV只携带IPv4地址。请注意，更改仅限于字段名称；没有语义变化。
Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and state:
[RFC4379]第3.2.8节至第3.2.10节列出了PW子TLV，并说明：
"FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
“FEC 128”伪线（已弃用）
"FEC 128" Pseudowire
“FEC128”假导线
"FEC 129" Pseudowire
“FEC 129”假导线
These names and titles are now changed to:
这些名称和标题现在更改为：
"FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
“FEC 128”伪线-IPv4（已弃用）
"FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
“FEC 128”伪线-IPv4
"FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
“FEC 129”伪线-IPv4
Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] state:
此外，当参考PE地址时，[RFC4379]第3.2.8节至第3.2.10节规定：
Sender's PE Address
发件人的PE地址
Remote PE Address
远程PE地址
These are now updated to say:
现在更新为：
Sender's PE IPv4 Address
发送方的PE IPv4地址
Remote PE IPv4 Address
远程PE IPv4地址
The FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has a structure consistent with the FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379]. The encoding of the FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV is as follows:
FEC 128伪线IPv6子TLV的结构与[RFC4379]第3.2.9节所述的FEC 128伪线子TLV一致。FEC 128伪线IPv6子TLV的编码如下：
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv6
图1:FEC128伪线-IPv6
FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type: 24. 2 octets.
FEC 128 PW IPv6类型：24。2个八位组。
Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets.
长度：定义子TLV的值字段的长度（以八位字节为单位），其值为38。2个八位组。
Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets.
发送方的PE IPv6地址：目标IPv6 LDP会话的源IP地址。16个八位组。
Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets.
远程PE IPv6地址：目标IPv6 LDP会话的目标IP地址。16个八位组。
PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
PW ID：与FEC 128伪线IPv4相同[RFC4379]。
PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
PW类型：与FEC 128伪线IPv4相同[RFC4379]。
The FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has a structure consistent with the FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]. The encoding of FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 is as follows:
如[RFC4379]第3.2.10节所述，FEC 129伪线IPv6子TLV具有与FEC 129伪线子TLV一致的结构。FEC 129伪线IPv6的编码如下：
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ AGI Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | AGI Type | AGI Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ AGI Value ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | SAII Length | SAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ SAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAII Value (continued) ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv6
图2:FEC 129伪线-IPv6
FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type: 25. 2 octets.
FEC 129 PW IPv6类型：25。2个八位组。
Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-TLV. 2 octets
长度：定义子TLV值字段的长度（以八位字节为单位）。2个八位组
The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI (Attachment Group Identifier) length + SAII (Source Attachment Individual Identifier) length + TAII (Target Attachment Individual Identifier) length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4; the length of the padding is not included in the Length field.
该TLV的长度为40+AGI（附件组标识符）长度+SAII（源附件个人标识符）长度+TAII（目标附件个人标识符）长度。填充用于使总长度为4的倍数；长度字段中不包括填充的长度。
Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets.
发送方的PE IPv6地址：目标IPv6 LDP会话的源IP地址。16个八位组。
Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6 LDP session. 16 octets.
远程PE IPv6地址：目标IPv6 LDP会话的目标IP地址。16个八位组。
The other fields are the same as FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
其他字段与FEC 129伪线IPv4[RFC4379]相同。
Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack. Per the change described in Sections 2 and 3, the table would show the following:
[RFC4379]第3.2节列出了目标FEC堆栈的所有子TLV。根据第2节和第3节所述的变更，该表将显示以下内容：
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
...
9 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
10 14 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
11 16+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
...
24 38 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
25 40+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ -----------
...
9 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
10 14 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
11 16+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
...
24 38 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
25 40+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
This document does not define any new procedures. The process described in [RFC4379] MUST be used.
本文件未定义任何新程序。必须使用[RFC4379]中描述的过程。
IANA has made the following assignments in the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry.
IANA在“多协议标签交换（MPLS）标签交换路径（LSP）Ping参数”注册表中进行了以下分配。
The following sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two additions, are made for the TLV Type 1 "Target FEC Stack" in the "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
以下子TLV更改包括三次更新和两次添加，用于“TLV和子TLV”子注册表中的TLV类型1“目标FEC堆栈”。
The names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs have been updated to include the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and the Reference has been updated to point to this document:
这三个子TLV的值字段名称已更新，以包含“IPv4”限定符（参见第2节），并且参考已更新，以指向本文档：
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 9 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
1 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
1 11 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 9 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
1 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
1 11 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
Two new entries for the Sub-Type field of the Target FEC TLV (see Section 3) have been created:
已为目标FEC TLV的子类型字段创建了两个新条目（见第3节）：
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 24 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
1 25 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- -----------
1 24 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
1 25 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
This document does not introduce any new security issues; the security mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.
本文件未引入任何新的安全问题；[RFC4379]中定义的安全机制适用于此处。
The authors gratefully acknowledge the review and comments of Vanson Lim, Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella.
作者感谢Vanson Lim、Tom Petch、Spike Curtis、Loa Andersson和Kireeti Kompella的评论和评论。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006.
[RFC4379]Kompella，K.和G.Swallow，“检测多协议标签交换（MPLS）数据平面故障”，RFC 4379，2006年2月。
[MPLS-LDP] Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, "Updates to LDP for IPv6", Work in Progress, June 2012.
[MPLS-LDP]Asati，R.，Manral，V.，Papneja，R.，和C.Pignataro，“IPv6的LDP更新”，正在进行的工作，2012年6月。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Mach(Guoyi) Chen Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District Beijing 100085 China
中国北京市海淀区上地新西路3号马赫（国一）陈华为技术有限公司100085
EMail: mach@huawei.com
EMail: mach@huawei.com
Ping Pan Infinera US
平盘国际酒店
EMail: ppan@infinera.com
EMail: ppan@infinera.com
Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US
卡洛斯·皮格纳塔罗思科系统7200-12美国北卡罗来纳州基特克里克路研究三角公园，邮编27709
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Rajiv Asati Cisco Systems 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 US
Rajiv Asati Cisco Systems 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park，美国北卡罗来纳州27709
EMail: rajiva@cisco.com
EMail: rajiva@cisco.com