RFC 7510: Encapsulating MPLS in UDP
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document specifies an IP-based encapsulation for MPLS, called MPLS-in-UDP for situations where UDP (User Datagram Protocol) encapsulation is preferred to direct use of MPLS, e.g., to enable UDP-based ECMP (Equal-Cost Multipath) or link aggregation. The MPLS- in-UDP encapsulation technology must only be deployed within a single network (with a single network operator) or networks of an adjacent set of cooperating network operators where traffic is managed to avoid congestion, rather than over the Internet where congestion control is required. Usage restrictions apply to MPLS-in-UDP usage for traffic that is not congestion controlled and to UDP zero checksum usage with IPv6.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC7510
- Published
- April 2015
- Authors
- X. Xu; N. Sheth; L. Yong; R. Callon; D. Black
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 19
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 7325MPLS Forwarding Compliance and Performance RequirementsCurrent
August 2014
- RFC 7190Use of Multipath with MPLS and MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)Current
March 2014
- RFC 8084Network Transport Circuit BreakersCurrent
March 2017
- RFC 7226Requirements for Advanced Multipath in MPLS NetworksCurrent
May 2014
- RFC 7978Transparent Interconnection of Lots of Links (TRILL): RBridge Channel Header ExtensionCurrent
September 2016
- RFC 7820UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)Current
March 2016
- RFC 7821UDP Checksum Complement in the Network Time Protocol (NTP)Updated
March 2016
- RFC 6935IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled PacketsCurrent
April 2013
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?