< draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-09.txt		draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-10.txt >
	Network Working Group F. Le Faucheur, Ed.		Network Working Group F. Le Faucheur, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Cisco		Internet-Draft Cisco
	Intended status: BCP August 2, 2011		Updates: 2113,2711 (if approved) August 2, 2011
			Intended status: BCP
	Expires: February 3, 2012		Expires: February 3, 2012
	IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage		IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage
	draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-09		draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations-10
	Abstract		Abstract
	The IP Router Alert Option is an IP option that alerts transit		The IP Router Alert Option is an IP option that alerts transit
	routers to more closely examine the contents of an IP packet.		routers to more closely examine the contents of an IP packet.
	Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP), Pragmatic General Multicast		Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP), Pragmatic General Multicast
	(PGM), Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), Multicast Listener		(PGM), Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), Multicast Listener
	Discovery (MLD), Multicast Router Discovery (MRD) and General		Discovery (MLD), Multicast Router Discovery (MRD) and General
	Internet Signalling Transport (GIST) are some of the protocols that		Internet Signalling Transport (GIST) are some of the protocols that
	make use of the IP Router Alert Option. This document discusses		make use of the IP Router Alert Option. This document discusses
	security aspects and usage guidelines around the use of the current		security aspects and usage guidelines around the use of the current
	IP Router Alert Option. Specifically, it provides recommendation		IP Router Alert Option thereby updating RFC2113 and RFC2711.
	against using the Router Alert in the end-to-end open Internet as		Specifically, it provides recommendation against using the Router
	well as identify controlled environments where protocols depending on		Alert in the end-to-end open Internet as well as identify controlled
	Router Alert can be used safely. It also provides recommendation		environments where protocols depending on Router Alert can be used
	about protection approaches for Service Providers. Finally it		safely. It also provides recommendation about protection approaches
	provides brief guidelines for Router Alert implementation on routers.		for Service Providers. Finally it provides brief guidelines for
			Router Alert implementation on routers.
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 35 ¶
	o the sites of a network A are interconnected through a service		o the sites of a network A are interconnected through a service
	provider network B		provider network B
	o the service provider network B protects itself from IP Router		o the service provider network B protects itself from IP Router
	Alert messages without dropping those when they transit over the		Alert messages without dropping those when they transit over the
	transit network (for example using mechanisms discussed in		transit network (for example using mechanisms discussed in
	[RFC6178])		[RFC6178])
	In such controlled environment, an application relying on exchange		In such controlled environment, an application relying on exchange
	and handling of RAO packets (e.g., RSVP) in the network A sites (but		and handling of RAO packets (e.g., RSVP) in the network A sites (but
	not inside network B) MAY be safely deployed. We refer to such a		not inside network B) can be safely deployed. We refer to such a
	deployment as a use of Router Alert in a Water-Tight Overlay.		deployment as a use of Router Alert in a Water-Tight Overlay.
	"Overlay" because Router Alert Option datagrams are used in network A		"Overlay" because Router Alert Option datagrams are used in network A
	on top of, and completely transparently to, network B. "Water-Tight"		on top of, and completely transparently to, network B. "Water-Tight"
	because router alert option datagrams from A cannot leak inside		because router alert option datagrams from A cannot leak inside
	network B. A private enterprise intranet realised as a Virtual		network B. A private enterprise intranet realised as a Virtual
	Private Network (VPN) over a Service Provider network, and using RSVP		Private Network (VPN) over a Service Provider network, and using RSVP
	to perform reservations within the enterprise sites for voice and		to perform reservations within the enterprise sites for voice and
	video flows might be an example of such controlled environment. Such		video flows might be an example of such controlled environment. Such
	an environment is illustrated in Figure 4.		an environment is illustrated in Figure 4.
End of changes. 4 change blocks.
	9 lines changed or deleted		11 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/