Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint
Network Work group N. Nainar
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Updates: 8287 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Aissaoui
Expires: May 22, 2022 Nokia
November 18, 2021
OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-06
Abstract
IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" and "Protocol
in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
registries under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry. RFC8287 defines the
code points for Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) and Intermediate
System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) protocols.
This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID
sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP) is OSPFv3. This document also updates RFC8287 by
clarifying that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be used only to
indicate OSPFv2, and by defining the behavior when the Segment ID
sub-TLV indicates the use of IPv6.
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 https://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 May 22, 2022.
Nainar, et al. Expires May 22, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping November 2021
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. OSPFv3 protocol in Segment ID sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. OSPFv3 protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . 4
6. Update to RFC8287 - OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP
sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Protocol in Label Stack sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
IANA has created the "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" registry
and "Protocol in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV" registries under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]. [RFC8287] defines the code points for OSPF and
IS-IS.
"OSPF for IPv6" [RFC5340] describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) to
support IPv6. "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" [RFC5838]
describes the mechanism to support multiple address families (AFs) in
OSPFv3. Accordingly, OSPFv3 may be used to advertise IPv6 and IPv4
prefixes.
Nainar, et al. Expires May 22, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping November 2021
This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID
sub-TLV (Type 34, 35 and 36) and in the Downstream Detailed Mapping
(DDMAP) TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3.
This document also updates "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute
for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment
Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes" [RFC8287] by clarifying
that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate
OSPFv2, and by defining the behavior when the Segment ID sub-TLV
indicates the use of IPv6.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminology defined in "Segment Routing
Architecture" [RFC8402], "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched
(MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" [RFC8029], [RFC8287] and so the readers
are expected to be familiar with the same.
3. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. OSPFv3 protocol in Segment ID sub-TLVs
When the protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV of Type 34 (IPv4
IGP-Prefix Segment ID), Type 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID) and Type
36 (IGP-Adjacency Segment ID) is set to 3, the responder MUST perform
the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) validation using OSPFv3 as the
IGP.
The initiator MUST NOT set the protocol field of the Segment ID sub-
TLV Type 35 and Type 36 as OSPF (value 1) as OSPFv2 is not compatible
with the use of IPv6 addresses indicated by this sub-TLV.
When the protocol field in the received Segment ID sub-TLV Type 35
and Type 36 is OSPF (value 1), the responder MAY treat the protocol
value as "Any IGP Protocol" (value 0) according to step 4a of
Section 7.4 of [RFC8287]. This allows the responder to support
legacy implementations that use value 1 to indicate OSPFv3.
Nainar, et al. Expires May 22, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping November 2021
5. OSPFv3 protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
The protocol field of the Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV in
an echo reply is set to 7 when OSPFv3 is used to distribute the label
carried in the Downstream Label field.
6. Update to RFC8287 - OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP sub-TLVs
Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines the code point for OSPF to be used in
the Protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV. Section 6 of [RFC8287]
defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of
the DDMAP TLV.
This document updates [RFC8287], by specifying that the "OSPF" code
points SHOULD be used only for OSPFv2.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV
IANA is requested to assign a new code point from the "Protocol in
the Segment ID sub-TLV" registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
registry as follows:
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ------- ------------
3 OSPFv3 This document
IANA is also requested to add a note for the existing entry for code
point 1 (OSPF) to read: - "To be used for OSPFv2 only".
7.2. Protocol in Label Stack sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
IANA is requested to assign a new code point for OSPFv3 from
"Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry as follows:
Value Meaning Reference
---------- --------- ------------
7 OSPFv3 This document
IANA is also requested to add a note for the existing codepoint 5
(OSPF) to read - "To be used for OSPFv2 only".
Nainar, et al. Expires May 22, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping November 2021
8. Security Considerations
This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional
security considerations. See [RFC8029] to see generic security
considerations about the MPLS LSP Ping.
9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Zafar Ali, Loa
Andersson, Andrew Molotchko, Deborah Brungard, Acee Lindem and Adrian
Farrel for their review and suggestions.
The authors also would like to thank Christer Holmberg, Tero Kivinen,
Matthew Bocci, Tom Petch and Martin Vigoureux for their review
comments.
10. Normative References
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
Nainar, et al. Expires May 22, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping November 2021
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses
Nagendra Kumar Nainar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Mustapha Aissaoui
Nokia
Canada
Email: mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com
Nainar, et al. Expires May 22, 2022 [Page 6]
