Network Working Group V. Manral, Ed. Internet-Draft IPInfusion Inc. Intended status: Standards Track January 02, 2011 Expires: July 6, 2011 RSVP-TE IPv6 draft-manral-mpls-rsvpte-ipv6-01 Abstract RSVP defined in [RFC2205] defines a resource reservation setup protocol, designed for an integrated service internet. RSVP-TE defined in [RFC2205] extends RSVP to establish LSP's in MPLS. For RSVP-TE hops that cannot allocate Labels cannot exist in the PATH of the LSP's. It is therefore specified that for IPv6 RSVP-TE LSP's Path, PathTear and ResvConf Messages should address the messages directly to an adjacent node control plane IPv6 address. This document also specfies some other changes required for RSVP-TE to work over IPv6 transport. Requirements Language 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]. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2011. Copyright Notice Manral Expires July 6, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE IPv6 Changes January 2011 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Router Alert Option Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Other minor changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Manral Expires July 6, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE IPv6 Changes January 2011 1. Introduction RSVP was designed to allow non RSVP nodes along the PATH to exist. The restriction does not apply for RSVP-TE for IPv6 as a node that cannot allocate Labels cannot exist in the PATH of the LSP's. RSVP-TE for IPv6 has not been widely deployed. It is there fore reccomended that RSVP-TE signalling over IPv6 not use Router Alert Option but instead send packet to the Peer control plane address. Some other details missed out in IPv6 are also explained in detail 2. Router Alert Option Details RSVP itself does not specify anything about the Router Alert Option in IPv6, though it explicitly specifies the details of the Router Alert Option for IPv4. It however specifies extensions for all the objects for IPv6. Assuming the Path, PathTear or ResvConf Message use Router Alert in IPv6 extension in the IPv6 just like in IPv4, the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options header is extended for allowing the Router Alert Functionality [RFC2711]. Besides the known security risks related to DoS atttacks with Router Alert in operational networks, the option is also not well implemented in the field in most OS's. It is there fore reccomended that Path, PathTear or ResvConf messages when transported over IPv6 SHOULD send the packets directly to the neighbor control plane IPv6 address. 3. Other minor changes Hello Messages need to be sent out with the Hop Limit Field set to 1 for IPv6 based Hellos. 4. IANA Considerations This document makes no request of IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. Manral Expires July 6, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft RSVP-TE IPv6 Changes January 2011 5. Security Considerations This document precludes the use of the Router Alert Option, which is related to possible security risks related to DoS attacks. This draft thus improves the security of the IPv6 based RSVP-TE. This draft clarifies the behavior of RSVP-TE for IPv6 which can lead to better implementations and hence lesser security and other issues. 6. Acknowledgements 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 7.2. Informative References [RFC2205] Braden, B., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", September 1997. [RFC2711] Partridge, C., "IPv6 Router Alert Option", October 1999. [RFC3209] Awduche, D., "Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels", DEcember 2001. Author's Address Vishwas Manral (editor) IPInfusion Inc. 1188 E. Arques Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94085 US Phone: 408-400-1900 Fax: Email: vishwas@ipinfusion.com URI: Manral Expires July 6, 2011 [Page 4]