File: rfc3034.txt

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20181229-2
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: non-free
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 570,944 kB
  • sloc: xml: 285,646; sh: 107; python: 90; perl: 42; makefile: 14
file content (1347 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 53,176 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347






Network Working Group                                           A. Conta
Request for Comments: 3034                        Transwitch Corporation
Category: Standards Track                                      P. Doolan
                                                                Ennovate
                                                                A. Malis
                                                   Vivace Networks, Inc.
                                                            January 2001


             Use of Label Switching on Frame Relay Networks
                             Specification

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document defines the model and generic mechanisms for
   Multiprotocol Label Switching on Frame Relay networks.  Furthermore,
   it extends and clarifies portions of the Multiprotocol Label
   Switching Architecture described in [ARCH] and the Label Distribution
   Protocol (LDP) described in [LDP] relative to Frame Relay Networks.
   MPLS enables the use of Frame Relay Switches as Label Switching
   Routers (LSRs).

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction................................................2
   2. Terminology.................................................3
   3. Special Characteristics of Frame Relay Switches.............4
   4. Label Encapsulation.........................................5
   5. Frame Relay Label Switching Processing......................6
   5.1  Use of DLCIs..............................................6
   5.2  Homogeneous LSPs..........................................7
   5.3  Heterogeneous LSPs........................................7
   5.4  Frame Relay Label Switching Loop Prevention and Control...7
   5.4.1   FR-LSRs Loop Control - MPLS TTL Processing.............7
   5.4.2   Performing MPLS TTL calculations.......................8
   5.5  Label Processing by Ingress FR-LSRs......................12



Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   5.6  Label Processing by Core FR-LSRs.........................12
   5.7  Label Processing by Egress FR-LSRs.......................13
   6.  Label Switching Control Component for Frame Relay.........13
   6.1  Hybrid Switches (Ships in the Night)  ...................14
   7.  Label Allocation and Maintenance Procedures ..............15
   7.1  Edge LSR Behavior........................................15
   7.2  Efficient use of label space-Merging FR-LSRs.............18
   7.3  LDP message fields specific to Frame Relay...............19
   8.  Security Considerations  .................................21
   9.  Acknowledgments  .........................................21
   10. References  ..............................................22
   11. Authors' Addresses  ......................................23
   12. Full Copyright Statement  ................................24

1. Introduction

   The Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture is described in
   [ARCH].  It is possible to use Frame Relay switches as Label
   Switching Routers.  Such Frame Relay switches run network layer
   routing algorithms (such as OSPF, IS-IS, etc.), and their forwarding
   is based on the results of these routing algorithms.  No specific
   Frame Relay routing is needed.

   When a Frame Relay switch is used for label switching, the top
   (current) label, on which forwarding decisions are based, is carried
   in the DLCI field of the Frame Relay data link layer header of a
   frame.  Additional information carried along with the top (current)
   label, but not processed by Frame Relay switching, along with other
   labels, if the packet is multiply labeled, are carried in the generic
   MPLS encapsulation defined in [STACK].

   Frame Relay permanent virtual circuits (PVCs) could be configured to
   carry label switching based traffic.  The DLCIs would be used as MPLS
   Labels and the Frame Relay switches would become Frame Relay Label
   Switching Routers, while the MPLS traffic would be encapsulated
   according to this specification, and would be forwarded based on
   network layer routing information.

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, MAY, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED,
   SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT are to be interpreted as defined
   in RFC 2119.

   This document is a companion document to [STACK] and [ATM].








Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


2. Terminology

   LSR

      A Label Switching Router (LSR) is a device which implements the
      label switching control and forwarding components described in
      [ARCH].

   LC-FR

      A label switching controlled Frame Relay (LC-FR) interface is a
      Frame Relay interface controlled by the label switching control
      component.  Packets traversing such an interface carry labels in
      the DLCI field.

   FR-LSR

      A FR-LSR is an LSR with one or more LC-FR interfaces which
      forwards frames between two such interfaces using labels carried
      in the DLCI field.

   FR-LSR domain

      A FR-LSR domain is a set of FR-LSRs, which are mutually
      interconnected by LC-FR interfaces.

   Edge Set

      The Edge Set of an FR-LSR domain is the set of LSRs, which are
      connected to the domain by LC-FR interfaces.

   Forwarding Encapsulation

      The Forwarding Encapsulation is the type of MPLS encapsulation
      (Frame Relay, ATM, Generic) of a packet that determines the
      packet's MPLS forwarding, or the network layer encapsulation if
      that packet is forwarded based on the network layer (IP,
      etc...)header.

   Input Encapsulation

      The Input Encapsulation is the type of MPLS encapsulation (Frame
      Relay, ATM, Generic) of a packet when that packet is received on
      an LSR's interface, or the network layer (IP, etc...)encapsulation
      if that packet has no MPLS encapsulation.






Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   Output Encapsulation

      The Output Encapsulation is the type of MPLS encapsulation (Frame
      Relay, ATM, Generic) of a packet when that packet is transmitted
      on an LSR's interface, or the network layer (IP,
      etc...)encapsulation if that packet has no MPLS encapsulation.

   Input TTL

      The Input TTL is the MPLS TTL of the top of the stack when a
      labeled packet is received on an LSR interface, or the network
      layer (IP) TTL if the packet is not labeled.

   Output TTL

      The Output TTL is the MPLS TTL of the top of the stack when a
      labeled packet is transmitted on an LSR interface, or the network
      layer (IP) TTL if the packet is not labeled.

   Additionally, this document uses terminology from [ARCH].

3. Special characteristics of Frame Relay Switches

   While the label switching architecture permits considerable
   flexibility in LSR implementation, a FR-LSR is constrained by the
   capabilities of the (possibly pre-existing) hardware and the
   restrictions on such matters as frame format imposed by the
   Multiprotocol Interconnect over Frame Relay [MIFR], or Frame Relay
   standards [FRF], etc.... Because of these constraints, some special
   procedures are required for FR-LSRs.

   Some of the key features of Frame Relay switches that affect their
   behavior as LSRs are:

   -  the label swapping function is performed on fields (DLCI) in the
      frame's Frame Relay data link header; this dictates the size and
      placement of the label(s) in a packet.  The size of the DLCI field
      can be 10 (default) or 23 bits, and it can span two or four bytes
      in the header.

   -  there is generally no capability to perform a 'TTL-decrement'
      function as is performed on IP headers in routers.

   -  congestion control is performed by each node based on parameters
      that are passed at circuit creation.  Flags in the frame headers
      may be set as a consequence of congestion, or exceeding the
      contractual parameters of the circuit.




Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   -  although in a standard switch it may be possible to configure
      multiple input DLCIs to one output DLCI resulting in a
      multipoint-to-point circuit, multipoint-to-multipoint VCs are
      generally not fully supported.

   This document describes ways of applying label switching to Frame
   Relay switches, which work within these constraints.

4. Label Encapsulation

   By default, all labeled packets should be transmitted with the
   generic label encapsulation as defined in [STACK], using the frame
   relay null encapsulation mechanism:

               0                       1                       (Octets)
              +-----------------------+-----------------------+
   (Octets)0  |                                               |
              /                 Q.922 Address                 /
              /             (length 'n' equals 2 or 4)        /
              |                                               |
              +-----------------------+-----------------------+
           n  |                       .                       |
              /                       .                       /
              /                  MPLS packet                  /
              |                       .                       |
              +-----------------------+-----------------------+

      "n" is the length of the Q.922 Address which can be 2 or 4 octets.

      The Q.922 [ITU] representation of a DLCI (in canonical order  -
      the first bit is stored in the least significant, i.e., the
      right-most bit of a byte in memory) [CANON] is the following:

            7     6     5     4     3     2     1     0      (bit order)
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
(octet) 0  |            DLCI(high order)       |  0  |  0  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        1  |  DLCI(low order)      |  0  |  0  |  0  |  1  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

              10 bits DLCI










Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


            7     6     5     4     3     2     1     0      (bit order)
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----00
(octet) 0  |            DLCI(high order)       |  0  |  0  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----
        1  |  DLCI                 |  0  |  0  |  0  |  0  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        2  |             DLCI                        |  0  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
        3  |       DLCI (low order)            |  0  |  1  |
           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

              23 bits DLCI

   The use of the frame relay null encapsulation implies that labels
   implicitly encode the network protocol type.

   Rules regarding the construction of the label stack, and error
   messages returned to the frame source are also described in [STACK].

   The generic encapsulation contains "n" labels for a label stack of
   depth "n" [STACK], where the top stack entry carries significant
   values for the EXP, S , and TTL fields [STACK] but not for the label,
   which is rather carried in the DLCI field of the Frame Relay data
   link header encoded in Q.922 [ITU] address format.

5. Frame Relay Label Switching Processing

5.1  Use of DLCIs

   Label switching is accomplished by associating labels with routes and
   using the label value to forward packets, including determining the
   value of any replacement label.  See [ARCH] for further details.  In
   a FR-LSR, the top (current) MPLS label is carried in the DLCI field
   of the Frame Relay data link layer header of the frame.  The top
   label carries implicitly information about the network protocol type.

   For two connected FR-LSRs, a full-duplex connection must be available
   for LDP.  The DLCI for the LDP VC is assigned a value by way of
   configuration, similar to configuring the DLCI used to run IP routing
   protocols between the switches.

   With the exception of this configured value, the DLCI values used for
   MPLS in the two directions of the link may be treated as belonging to
   two independent spaces, i.e., VCs may be half-duplex, each direction
   with its own DLCI.






Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   The allowable ranges of DLCIs, the size of DLCIs, and the support for
   VC merging MUST be communicated through LDP messages.  Note that the
   range of DLCIs used for labels depends on the size of the DLCI field.

5.2  Homogeneous LSPs

   If <LSR1, LSR2, LSR3> is an LSP, it is possible that LSR1, LSR2, and
   LSR3 will use the same encoding of the label stack when transmitting
   packet P from LSR1, to LSR2, and then to LSR3.  Such an LSP is
   homogeneous.

5.3  Heterogeneous LSPs

   If <LSR1, LSR2, LSR3> is an LSP, it is possible that LSR1 will use
   one encoding of the label stack when transmitting packet P to LSR2,
   but LSR2 will use a different encoding when transmitting a packet P
   to LSR3.  In general, the MPLS architecture supports LSPs with
   different label stack encodings on different hops.  When a labeled
   packet is received, the LSR must decode it to determine the current
   value of the label stack, then must operate on the label stack to
   determine the new label value of the stack, and then encode the new
   value appropriately before transmitting the labeled packet to its
   next hop.

   Naturally there will be MPLS networks which contain a combination of
   Frame Relay switches operating as LSRs, and other LSRs, which operate
   using other MPLS encapsulations, such as the Generic (MPLS shim
   header), or ATM encapsulation.  In such networks there may be some
   LSRs, which have Frame Relay interfaces as well as MPLS Generic
   ("MPLS Shim") interfaces.  This is one example of an LSR with
   different label stack encodings on different hops of the same LSP.
   Such an LSR may swap off a Frame Relay encoded label on an incoming
   interface and replace it with a label encoded into a Generic MPLS
   (MPLS shim) header on the outgoing interface.

5.4  Frame Relay Label Switching Loop Prevention and Control

   FR-LSRs SHOULD operate on loop free FR-LSPs or LSP Frame Relay
   segments.  Therefore, FR-LSRs SHOULD use loop detection and MAY use
   loop prevention mechanisms as described in [ARCH], and [LDP].

5.4.1  FR-LSRs Loop Control - MPLS TTL processing

   The MPLS TTL encoded in the MPLS label stack is a mechanism used to:

   (a) suppress loops;

   (b) limit the scope of a packet.



Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   When a packet travels along an LSP, it should emerge with the same
   TTL value that it would have had if it had traversed the same
   sequence of routers without having been label switched.  If the
   packet travels along a hierarchy of LSPs, the total number of LSR-
   hops traversed should be reflected in its TTL value when it emerges
   from the hierarchy of LSPs [ARCH].

   The initial value of the MPLS TTL is loaded into a newly pushed label
   stack entry from the previous TTL value, whether that is from the
   network layer header when no previous label stack existed, or from a
   pre-existent lower level label stack entry.

   A FR-LSR switching same level labeled packets does not decrement the
   MPLS TTL.  A sequence of such FR-LSR is a "non-TTL segment".

   When a packet emerges from a "non-TTL LSP segment", it should however
   reflect in the TTL the number of LSR-hops it traversed.  In the
   unicast case, this can be achieved by propagating a meaningful LSP
   length or LSP Frame Relay segment length to the FR-LSR ingress nodes,
   enabling the ingress to decrement the TTL value before forwarding
   packets into a non-TTL LSP segment [ARCH].

   When an ingress FR-LSR determines upon decrementing the MPLS TTL that
   a particular packet's TTL will expire before the packet reaches the
   egress of the "non-TTL LSP segment", the FR-LSR MUST not label switch
   the packet, but rather follow the specifications in [STACK] in an
   attempt to return an error message to the packet's source:

      -  it treats the packet as an expired packet and return an ICMP
         message to its source.

      -  it forwards the packet, as an unlabeled packet, with a TTL that
         reflects the IP (network layer) forwarding.

   If the incoming TTL is 1, only the first option applies.

   In the multicast case, a meaningful LSP length or LSP segment length
   is propagated to the FR-LSR egress node, enabling the egress to
   decrement the TTL value before forwarding packets out of the non-TTL
   LSP segment.

5.4.2  Performing MPLS TTL calculations

   The calculation applied to the "input TTL" that yields the "output
   TTL" depends on (i)the "input encapsulation", (ii)the "forwarding
   encapsulation", and (iii)the "output encapsulation".  The
   relationship among (i),(ii), and (iii), can be defined as a function




Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   "D" of "input encapsulation" (ie), "forwarding encapsulation" (fe),
   and "output encapsulation" (oe).  Subsequently the calculation
   applied to the "input TTL" to yield the "output TTL" can be described
   as:

     output TTL = input TTL - D(ie, fe, oe)

   or in a brief notation:

     output TTL = input TTL - d

   where "d" has three possible values: "0","1", or "the number of hops
   of the LSP segment":

   For unicast transmission:

+================+=================+=================+=================+
|                |     Type of     |     Type of     |     Type of     |
|       d        |      Input      |    Forwarding   |     Output      |
|                |  Encapsulation  |  Encapsulation  |  Encapsulation  |
+================+=================+=================+=================+
|       0        |   Frame Relay   |   Frame Relay   |   Frame Relay   |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|       1        |       any       |  Generic MPLS   |  Generic MPLS   |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| number of hops |                 |  Generic MPLS   |                 |
|      of        |       any       |      or         |   Frame Relay   |
|  LSP segment   |                 |IP(network layer)|                 |
+================+=================+=================+=================+

   The "number of hops of the LSP segment" is the value of the "hop
   count" that is attached with the label used when the packet is
   forwarded, if LDP [LDP] has provided such a "hop count" value when it
   distributed the label for the LSP, that is the LDP message had a "hop
   count object".  If LDP didn't provide a "hop count", or it provided
   an "unknown" value, the default value of the "number of hops of the
   segment" is 1.

   When sending a label binding upstream, the "hop count" associated
   with the corresponding binding from downstream, if different than the
   "unknown" value, MUST be incremented by 1, and the result transmitted
   upstream as the hop count associated with the new binding (the
   "unknown" value is transmitted unchanged).  If the new "hop count"
   value exceeds the "maximum" value, the FR-LSR MUST NOT pass the
   binding upstream, but instead MUST send an error upstream
   [LDP][ARCH].





Conta, et al.               Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   For multicast transmission:

+================+=================+=================+=================+
|                |     Type of     |     Type of     |     Type of     |
|       d        |      Input      |    Forwarding   |     Output      |
|                |  Encapsulation  |  Encapsulation  |  Encapsulation  |
+================+=================+=================+=================+
|       0        |   Frame Relay   |   Frame Relay   |   Frame Relay   |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|                |                 |  Generic MPLS   |                 |
|       1        |       any       |      or         |   Frame Relay   |
|                |                 |IP(network layer)|                 |
+----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| number of hops |                 |  Generic MPLS   |                 |
|      of        |  Frame Relay    |      or         |       any       |
|  LSP segment   |                 |IP(network layer)|                 |
+================+=================+=================+=================+

   Referring to the "forwarding encapsulation" with the abbreviation "I"
   for IP (network layer), "G" for Generic MPLS, and "F" for Frame Relay
   MPLS, referring to an LSR interface with the abbreviation "i" if the
   input or output encapsulation is IP and no MPLS encapsulation, "g"
   when the input or output MPLS encapsulation is Generic MPLS, "f" when
   it is Frame Relay, "a" when it is ATM, and furthermore considering
   the symbols "iIf", "gGf", "fFf", etc... as LSRs with input,
   forwarding and output encapsulations as referred above, the following
   describes examples of TTL calculations for the Homogeneous and
   Heterogeneous LSPs discussed in previous sections:

                         Homogeneous LSP
                         ---------------
        IP_ttl = n                             IP_ttl=mpls_ttl-1 = n-6
        --------->iIf                      fIi--------->
                    | mpls_ttl = n-5       ^
                    |                      |
number of hops     1|     Frame Relay      |5
                    |                      |
                    V   2      3      4    |
                    fFf--->fFf--->fFf--->fFf

 "iIf" is "ingress LSR" in Frame Relay LSP and
        calculates: mpls_ttl = IP_TTL - number of hops = n-5
 "fIi" is "egress LSR" from Frame Relay LSP, and
        calculates: IP_ttl = mpls_ttl-1 = n-6







Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


                          Heterogeneous LSP
                          -----------------
ingress LSR                                                  egress LSR
IP_ttl = n                                               IP_ttl = n - 15
links   LAN   PPP        FR          ATM    PPP    FR     LAN
 --->iIg-->gGg-->gGf            fGa       aGg-->gGf       fGg-->gIi--->
hops     1     2   |     6      | |   9   |  10   |  13   ^  14    15
                   |1          4| |1     3|       |1     3|
                   V  2     3   | V   2   |       V   2   |
                  fFf-->fFf-->fFf aAa-->aAa       fFf-->fFf
mpls_ttl
       n-1   n-2  (n-2)-4=n-6  (n-6)-3=n-9  n-10  n-13     n-14


"iIg" is "ingress LSR" in LSP; it calculates: mpls_ttl=n-1
"gGf" is "egress LSR" from Generic MPLS segment, and
      "ingress LSR" in Frame Relay segment and calculates: mpls_ttl=n-6
"fGa" "egress LSR" from Frame Relay segment, and
      "ingress LSR" in ATM segment and calculates: mpls_ttl=n-9
"gGf" is "egress LSR" from Generic MPLS segment, and
      "ingress LSR" in Frame Relay segment and calculates: mpls_ttl=n-13
"fGg" is "egress LSR" from Frame Relay segment, and
      ingress LSR" in Generic MPLS segment and calculates: mpls_ttl=n-14
"gIi" is "egress LSR" from  LSP and calculates: IP_ttl=n-15


      And further examples:

                Frame Relay Unicast -- TTL calculated at ingress

   (ingress LSR)  1     2        3      4
            x--->---+--->---+--->>--+-->>---x (egress LSR)
      o.ttl=i.ttl-4         |     2      3
                            ^
    hops                   1|
                            |
                            x (ingress LSR)
                              o.ttl=i.ttl-3


          Frame Relay Multicast -- TTL calculated at egress

                (egress LSR)x  o.ttl=i.ttl-3
    hops                    |
                            ^3
     (ingress LSR)          |            o.ttl=i.ttl-4
            x--->---+--->---+--->---+--->---x (egress LSR)
                1       2       3       4



Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


5.5  Label Processing by Ingress FR-LSRs

   When a packet first enters an MPLS domain, the packet is forwarded by
   normal  network  layer  forwarding operations with the exception that
   the outgoing encapsulation will include an MPLS label stack [STACK]
   with at least one entry.  The frame relay null encapsulation will
   carry information about the network layer protocol implicitly in the
   label, which MUST be associated only with that network protocol.  The
   TTL field in the top label stack entry is filled with the network
   layer TTL (or hop limit) resulted after network layer forwarding
   [STACK].  The further FR-LSR processing is similar in both possible
   cases:

   (a) the LSP is homogeneous -- Frame Relay only -- and the FR-LSR is
   the ingress.

   (b) the LSP is heterogeneous -- Frame Relay, PPP, Ethernet, ATM,
   etc... segments form the LSP -- and the FR-LSR is the ingress into a
   Frame Relay segment.

   For unicast packets, the MPLS TTL SHOULD be decremented with the
   number of hops of the Frame Relay LSP (homogeneous), or Frame Relay
   segment of the LSP (heterogeneous).  An LDP constructing the LSP
   SHOULD pass meaningful information to the ingress FR-LSR regarding
   the number of hops of the "non-TTL segment".

   For multicast packets, the MPLS TTL SHOULD be decremented by 1.  An
   LDP constructing the LSP SHOULD pass meaningful information to the
   egress FR-LSR regarding the number of hops of the "non-TTL segment".

   Next, the MPLS encapsulated packet is passed down to the Frame Relay
   data link driver with the top label as output DLCI.  The Frame Relay
   frame carrying the MPLS encapsulated packet is forwarded onto the
   Frame Relay VC to the next LSR.

5.6  Label Processing by Core FR-LSRs

   In a FR-LSR, the current (top) MPLS label is carried in the DLCI
   field of the Frame Relay data link layer header of the frame.  Just
   as in conventional Frame Relay, for a frame arriving at an interface,
   the DLCI carried by the Frame Relay data link header is looked up in
   the DLCI Information Base, replaced with the correspondent output
   DLCI, and transmitted on the outgoing interface (forwarded to the
   next hop node).







Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   The current label information is also carried in the top of the label
   stack.  In the top-level entry, all fields except the label
   information, which is carried and switched in the Frame Relay frame
   data link-layer header, are of current significance.

5.7  Label Processing by Egress FR-LSRs

   When reaching the end of a Frame Relay LSP, the FR-LSR pops the label
   stack [ARCH].  If the label popped is the last label, it is necessary
   to determine the particular network layer protocol which is being
   carried.  The label stack carries no explicit information to identify
   the network layer protocol.  This must be inferred from the value of
   the label which is popped from the stack.

   If the label popped is not the last label, the previous top level
   MPLS TTL is propagated to the new top label stack entry.

   If the FR-LSR is the egress switch of a Frame Relay segment of a
   hybrid LSP, and the end of the Frame Relay segment is not the end of
   the LSP, the MPLS packet will be processed for forwarding onto the
   next segment of the LSP based on the information held in the Next Hop
   Label Forwarding Entry (NHLFE) [ARCH].  The output label is set to
   the value from the NHLFE, and the MPLS TTL is decremented by the
   appropriate value depending the type of the output interface and the
   type of transmit operation (see section 6.3).  Further, the MPLS
   packet is forwarded according to the MPLS specifications for the
   particular link of the next segment of the LSP.

   For unicast packets, the MPLS TTL SHOULD be decremented by one if the
   output interface is a generic one, or with the number of hops of the
   next ATM segment of the LSP (heterogeneous), if the output interface
   is an ATM (non-TTL) interface.

   For multicast packets, the MPLS TTL SHOULD be decremented by the
   number of hops of the FR segment being exited.  An LDP constructing
   the LSP SHOULD pass meaningful information to the egress FR-LSR
   regarding the number of hops of the FR "non-TTL segment".

6.  Label Switching Control Component for Frame Relay

   To support label switching a Frame Relay Switch MUST implement the
   control component of label switching, which consists primarily of
   label allocation and maintenance procedures.  Label binding
   information MAY be communicated by several mechanisms, one of which
   is the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [LDP].






Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   Since the label switching control component uses information learned
   directly from network layer routing protocols, this implies that the
   switch MUST participate as a peer in these protocols (e.g., OSPF,
   IS-IS).

   In some cases, LSRs may use other protocols (e.g., RSVP, PIM, BGP) to
   distribute label bindings.  In these cases, a Frame Relay LSR should
   participate in these protocols.

   In the case where Frame Relay circuits are established via LDP, or
   RSVP, or others, with no involvement from traditional Frame Relay
   mechanisms, it is assumed that circuit establishing contractual
   information such as input/output maximum frame size,
   incoming/outgoing requested/agreed throughput, incoming/outgoing
   acceptable throughput, incoming/outgoing burst size,
   incoming/outgoing frame rate, used in transmitting, and congestion
   control MAY be passed to the FR-LSRs through RSVP, or can be
   statically configured.  It is also assumed that congestion control
   and frame header flagging as a consequence of congestion, would be
   done by the FR-LSRs in a similar fashion as for traditional Frame
   Relay circuits.  With the goal of emulating a best-effort router as
   default, the default VC parameters, in the absence of LDP, RSVP, or
   other mechanisms participation to setting such parameters, should be
   zero CIR, so that input policing will set the DE bit in incoming
   frames, but no frames are dropped.

   Control and state information for the circuits based on MPLS MAY be
   communicated through LDP.

   Support of label switching on a Frame Relay switch requires
   conformance only to [FRF] (framing, bit-stuffing, headers, FCS)
   except for section 2.3 (PVC control signaling procedures, aka LMI).
   Q.933 signaling for PVCs and/or SVCs is not required.  PVC and/or SVC
   signaling may be used for non-MPLS (standard Frame Relay) PVCs and/or
   SVCs when both are running on the same interface as MPLS, as
   discussed in the next section.

6.1  Hybrid Switches (Ships in the Night)

   The existence of the label switching control component on a Frame
   Relay switch does not preclude the ability to support the Frame Relay
   control component defined by the ITU and Frame Relay Forum on the
   same switch and the same interfaces (NICs).  The two control
   components, label switching and those defined by ITU/Frame Relay
   Forum, would operate independently.






Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   Definition of how such a device operates is beyond the scope of this
   document.  However, only a small amount of information needs to be
   consistent between the two control components, such as the portions
   of the DLCI space which are available to each component.

7.  Label Allocation and Maintenance Procedures

   The mechanisms and message formats of a Label Distribution Protocol
   are documented in [ARCH] and [LDP].  The "downstream-on-demand" label
   allocation and maintenance mechanism discussed in this section MUST
   be used by FR-LSRs that do not support VC merging, and it MAY also be
   used by FR-LSRs that do support VC merging (note that this mechanism
   applies to hop-by-hop routed traffic):

7.1   Edge LSR Behavior

   Consider a member of the Edge Set of a FR-LSR domain.  Assume that,
   as a result of its routing calculations, it selects a FR-LSR as the
   next hop of a certain route (FEC), and that the next hop is reachable
   via a LC-Frame Relay interface.  Assume that the next-hop FR-LSR is
   an "LDP-peer" [ARCH][LDP].  The Edge LSR sends an LDP "request"
   message for a label binding from the next hop, downstream LSR.  When
   the Edge LSR receives in response from the downstream LSR the label
   binding information in an LDP "mapping" message, the label is stored
   in the Label Information Base (LIB) as an outgoing label for that
   FEC.  The "mapping" message may contain the "hop count" object, which
   represents the number of hops a packet will take to cross the FR-LSR
   domain to the Egress FR-LSR when using this label.  This information
   may be stored for TTL calculation.  Once this is done, the LSR may
   use MPLS forwarding to transmit packets in that FEC.

   When a member of the Edge Set of the FR-LSR domain receives an LDP
   "request" message from a FR-LSR for a FEC, it means it is the
   Egress-FR-LSR.  It allocates a label, creates a new entry in its
   Label Information Base (LIB), places that label in the incoming label
   component of the entry, and returns (via LDP) a "mapping" message
   containing the allocated label back upstream to the LDP peer that
   originated the request.  The "mapping" message contains the "hop
   count" object value set to 1.

   When a routing calculation causes an Edge LSR to change the next hop
   for a route, and the former next hop was in the FR-LSR domain, the
   Edge LSR should notify the former next hop (via an LDP "release"
   message) that the label binding associated with the route is no
   longer needed.






Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   When a Frame Relay-LSR receives an LDP "request" message for a
   certain route (FEC) from an LDP peer connected to the FR-LSR over a
   LC-FR interface, the FR-LSR takes the following actions:

      -  it allocates a label, creates a new entry in its Label
         Information Base (LIB), and places that label in the incoming
         label component of the entry;

      -  it propagates the "request", by sending an LDP "request"
         message to the next hop LSR, downstream for that route (FEC);

   In the "ordered control" mode [ARCH], the FR-LSR will wait for its
   "request" to be responded from downstream with a "mapping" message
   before returning the "mapping" upstream in response to a "request"
   ("ordered control" approach [ARCH]).  In this case, the FR-LSR
   increments the hop count it received from downstream and uses this
   value in the "mapping" it returns upstream.

   Alternatively, the FR-LSR may return the binding upstream without
   waiting for a binding from downstream ("independent control" approach
   [ARCH]).  In this case, it uses a reserved value for hop count in the
   "mapping", indicating that it is 'unknown'.  The correct value for
   hop count will be returned later, as described below.

   Since both the "ordered" and "independent" control has advantages and
   disadvantages, this is left as an implementation, or configuration
   choice.

   Once the FR-LSR receives in response the label binding in an LDP
   "mapping" message from the next hop, it places the label into the
   outgoing label component of the LIB entry.

   Note that a FR-LSR, or a member of the edge set of a FR-LSR domain,
   may receive multiple binding requests for the same route (FEC) from
   the same FR-LSR.  It must generate a new "mapping" for each "request"
   (assuming adequate resources to do so), and retain any existing
   mapping(s).  For each "request" received, a FR-LSR should also
   generate a new binding "request" toward the next hop for the route
   (FEC).

   When a routing calculation causes a FR-LSR to change the next hop for
   a route (FEC), the FR-LSR should notify the former next hop (via an
   LDP "release" message) that the label binding associated with the
   route is no longer needed.

   When a LSR receives a notification that a particular label binding is
   no longer needed, the LSR may deallocate the label associated with
   the binding, and destroy the binding.  This mode is the "conservative



Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   label retention mode" [ARCH].  In the case where a FR-LSR receives
   such notification and destroys the binding, it should notify the next
   hop for the route that the label binding is no longer needed.  If a
   LSR does not destroy the binding (the FR-LSR is configured in
   "liberal label retention mode" [ARCH]), it may re-use the binding
   only if it receives a request for the same route with the same hop
   count as the request that originally caused the binding to be
   created.

   When a route changes, the label bindings are re-established from the
   point where the route diverges from the previous route.  LSRs
   upstream of that point are (with one exception, noted below)
   oblivious to the change.  Whenever a LSR changes its next hop for a
   particular route, if the new next hop is a FR-LSR or a member of the
   edge set reachable via a LC-FR interface, then for each entry in its
   LIB associated with the route the LSR should request (via LDP) a
   binding from the new next hop.

   When a FR-LSR receives a label binding from a downstream neighbor, it
   may already have provided a corresponding label binding for this
   route to an upstream neighbor, either because it is using
   "independent control" or because the new binding from downstream is
   the result of a routing change.  In this case, it should extract the
   hop count from the new binding and increment it by one.  If the new
   hop count is different from that which was previously conveyed to the
   upstream neighbor (including the case where the upstream neighbor was
   given the value 'unknown') the FR-LSR must notify the upstream
   neighbor of the change.  Each FR-LSR in turn increments the hop count
   and passes it upstream until it reaches the ingress Edge LSR.

   Whenever a FR-LSR originates a label binding request to its next hop
   LSR as a result of receiving a label binding request from another
   (upstream) LSR, and the request to the next hop LSR is not satisfied,
   the FR-LSR should destroy the binding created in response to the
   received request, and notify the requester (via an LDP "withdraw"
   message).

   When an LSR determines that it has lost its LDP session with another
   LSR, the following actions are taken:

      -  MUST discard any binding information learned via this
         connection;

      -  For any label bindings that were created as a result of
         receiving label binding requests from the peer, the LSR may
         destroy these bindings (and deallocate labels associated with
         these binding).




Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


7.2   Efficient use of label space - Merging FR-LSRs

   The above discussion assumes that an edge LSR will request one label
   for each prefix in its routing table that has a next hop in the FR-
   LSR domain. In fact, it is possible to significantly reduce the
   number of labels needed by having the edge LSR request instead one
   label for several routes.  Use of many-to-one mappings between routes
   (address  prefixes) and labels using the notion of Forwarding
   Equivalence Classes (as described in [ARCH]) provides a mechanism to
   conserve the number of labels.

   Note that conserving label space (VC merging) may be restricted in
   case the frame traffic requires Frame Relay fragmentation.  The issue
   is that Frame Relay fragments must be transmitted in sequence, i.e.,
   fragments of distinct frames must not be interleaved.  If the
   fragmenting FR-LSR ensures the transmission in sequence of all
   fragments of a frame, without interleaving with fragments of other
   frames, then label conservation (VC merging) can be performed.

   When label conservation is used, when a FR-LSR receives a binding
   request from an upstream LSR for a certain FEC, and it does already
   have an outgoing label binding for that FEC, it does not need to
   issue a downstream binding request.  Instead, it may allocate an
   incoming label, and return that label in a binding to the upstream
   requester.  Packets received from the requester, with that label as
   top label, will be forwarded after replacing the label with the
   existing outgoing label for that FEC.  If the FR-LSR does not have an
   outgoing label binding for that FEC, but does have an outstanding
   request for one, it need not issue another request.  This means that
   in a label conservation case, a FR-LSR must respond with a new
   binding for every upstream request, but it may need to send one
   binding request downstream.

   In case of label conservation, if a change in the routing table
   causes FR-LSR to select a new next hop for one of its FECs, it MAY
   release the binding for that route from the former next hop.  If it
   doesn't already have a corresponding binding for the new next hop, it
   must request one (note that the choice depends on the label retention
   mode [ARCH]).

   If a new binding is obtained, which contain a hop count that differs
   from that of the old binding, the FR-LSR must process the new hop
   count: increment by 1, if different than "unknown", and notify the
   upstream neighbors who have label bindings for this FEC of the new
   value.  To ensure that loops will be detected, if the new hop count
   exceeds the "maximum" value, the label values for this FEC must be
   withdrawn from all upstream neighbors to whom a binding was
   previously sent.



Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


7.3   LDP messages specific to Frame Relay

   The Label Distribution Protocol [LDP] messages exchanged between two
   Frame Relay "LDP-peer" LSRs may contain Frame Relay specific
   information such as:

   "Frame Relay Label Range":

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Reserved    |Len|               Minimum DLCI                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Reserved        |               Maximum DLCI                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   with the following fields:

   Reserved
      This fields are reserved.  They must be set to zero on
      transmission and must be ignored on receipt.

   Len
      This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI.  The
      following values are supported:

          Len  DLCI bits

          0     10
          2     23

      Len values 1 and 3 are reserved for future use.

   Minimum DLCI
      This 23 bit field is the binary value of the lower bound of a
      block of Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is
      supported by the originating FR-LSR.  The Minimum DLCI should be
      right justified in this field and the preceding bits should be set
      to 0.

   Maximum DLCI
      This 23 bit field is the binary value of the upper bound of a
      block of Data Link Connection Identifiers (DLCIs) that is
      supported by the originating FR-LSR.  The Maximum DLCI should be
      right justified in this field and the preceding bits should be set
      to 0.





Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


   "Frame Relay Merge":

          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
         | Reserved    |M|
         +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      with the following fields:

   Merge
      One bit field that specifies the merge capabilities of the FR-LSR:

      Value                  Meaning

        0                    Merge NOT supported
        1                    Merge supported

      A FR-LSR that supports VC merging MUST ensure that fragmented
      frames from distinct incoming DLCIs are not interleaved on the
      outgoing DLCI.

   Reserved
      This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission
      and must be ignored on receipt.

   and "Frame Relay Label":

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Reserved    |Len|                       DLCI                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   with the following fields:

   Reserved
      This field is reserved.  It must be set to zero on transmission and
      must be ignored on receipt.

   Len
      This field specifies the number of bits of the DLCI.  The following
      values are supported:

          Len  DLCI bits

          0     10
          2     23




Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


      Len values 1 and 3 are reserved for future use.

   DLCI
      The binary value of the Frame Relay Label.  The significant number
      of bits (10 or 23) of the label value are to be encoded into the
      Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI) field when part of the
      Frame Relay data link header (see Section 4.).

8.  Security Considerations

   This section looks at the security aspects of:

      (a) frame traffic,

      (b) label distribution.

   MPLS encapsulation has no effect on authenticated or encrypted
   network layer packets, that is IP packets that are authenticated or
   encrypted will incur no change.

   The MPLS protocol has no mechanisms of its own to protect against
   misdirection of packets or the impersonation of an LSR by accident or
   malicious intent.

   Altering by accident or forgery an existent label in the DLCI field
   of the Frame Relay data link layer header of a frame or one or more
   fields in a potentially following label stack affects the forwarding
   of that frame.

   The label distribution mechanism can be secured by applying the
   appropriate level of security to the underlying protocol carrying
   label information - authentication or encryption - see [LDP].

9.  Acknowledgments

   The initial version of this document was derived from the Label
   Switching over ATM document [ATM].

   Thanks for the extensive reviewing and constructive comments from (in
   alphabetical order) Dan Harrington, Milan Merhar, Martin Mueller,
   Eric Rosen.  Also thanks to George Swallow for the suggestion to use
   null encapsulation, and to Eric Gray for his reviewing.

   Also thanks to Nancy Feldman and Bob Thomas for their collaboration
   in including the LDP messages specific to Frame Relay LSRs.






Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


10.  References

   [MIFR]  Bradley, T., Brown, C. and A. Malis, "Multiprotocol
           Interconnect over Frame Relay", RFC 2427, September 1998.

   [ARCH]  Rosen, E., Callon, R. and A. Vishwanathan, "Multi-Protocol
           Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [LDP]   Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and R.
           Thomas, "Label Distribution Protocol", RFC 3036, January
           2001.

   [STACK] Rosen, E., Rehter, Y., Tappan, D., Farinacci, D., Fedorkow,
           G., Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC
           3032, January 2001.

   [ATM]   Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, M., Rosen, E., Swallow,
           G., Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "Use of Label Switching with
           ATM", RFC 3035, January 2001.

   [ITU]   International Telecommunications Union, "ISDN Data Link Layer
           Specification for Frame Mode Bearer Services", ITU-T
           Recommendation Q.922, 1992.

   [FRF]   Frame Relay Forum, User-to-Network Implementation Agreement
           (UNI), FRF 1.1, January 19, 1996.

























Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


11.  Authors' Addresses

   Alex Conta
   Transwitch Corporation
   3 Enterprise Drive
   Shelton, CT 06484

   Phone: 1-203-929-8810
   EMail: aconta@txc.com


   Paul Doolan
   Ennovate Networks
   60 Codman Hill Rd
   Boxborough MA 01719

   Phone: 1-978-263-2002
   EMail: pdoolan@ennovatenetworks.com


   Andrew G. Malis
   Vivace Networks, Inc.
   2730 Orchard Parkway
   San Jose, CA 95134
   USA

   Phone: 1-408-383-7223
   Fax:   1-408-904-4748
   EMail: Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com






















Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 3034            Label Switching with Frame Relay        January 2001


12.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Conta, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 24]