idnits 2.17.1 draft-abd-mpls-ldp-identifier-name-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (September 21, 2018) is 2037 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2104' is defined on line 260, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2104 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Anil Kumar 3 Internet-Draft Deepak J 4 Intended status: Standards Track Basil Saji 5 Expires: March 25, 2019 RtBrick India 6 September 21, 2018 8 MPLS LDP Identifier Name 9 draft-abd-mpls-ldp-identifier-name-00 11 Abstract 13 This document introduces a new optional LDP Identifier Name TLV that 14 allows LDP routers to inform their LDP-Identifier-to-Name mapping in 15 LDP Hello messages as part of the LDP Discovery Mechanism. This 16 document describes a mechanism to provide a simple and dynamic 17 mechanism for ldp routers to learn about symbolic LDP Identifier 18 Names. 20 Requirements Language 22 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 23 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 24 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 26 Status of This Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 25, 2019. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 2. LDP Identifier Name TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 2.1. Optional Parameter for Hello Message . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2.2. LDP Identifier Name TLV Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 66 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 67 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 68 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 69 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 72 1. Introduction 74 The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) [RFC5036] sets up LDP sessions 75 that run between LDP peers. The peers could either be directly 76 connected at the link level or could be multiple hops away. An LDP 77 Label Switching Router (LSR) could either be configured with the 78 identity of its peers or could discover them using LDP Hello 79 messages. These messages are sent encapsulated in UDP addressed to 80 "all routers on this subnet" or to a specific IP address. Periodic 81 Hello messages are also used to maintain the relationship between LDP 82 peers necessary to keep the LDP session active. 84 [RFC5036] states that an LDP Identifier is a six octet quantity used 85 to identify an LSR label space. The first four octets identify the 86 LSR and must be a globally unique value, such as a 32-bit router Id 87 assigned to the LSR. The last two octets identify a specific label 88 space within the LSR. The last two octets of LDP Identifiers for 89 platform-wide label spaces are always both zero. 91 An LSR that manages and advertises multiple label spaces uses a 92 different LDP Identifier for each such label space. 94 [RFC5036] specifies using following representation for LDP 95 Identifiers: :