idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 17. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 288. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 265. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 272. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 278. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == There are 3 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. == There are 3 instances of lines with private range IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use any of the ranges defined in RFC 6890 (or successor): 192.0.2.x, 198.51.100.x or 203.0.113.x. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 20, 2005) is 6790 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) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-bonica-internet-icmp-00 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MPLS Working Group R. Bonica 3 Internet-Draft D. Gan 4 Expires: March 24, 2006 Juniper Networks 5 D. Tappan 6 Cisco Systems, Inc. 7 September 20, 2005 9 ICMP Extensions for MultiProtocol Label Switching 10 draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-04 12 Status of this Memo 14 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 15 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 16 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 17 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 19 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 20 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 21 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 22 Drafts. 24 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 25 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 26 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 27 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 29 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 32 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 24, 2006. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 41 Abstract 43 This memo defines an extension to ICMP that permits Label Switching 44 Routers to append MPLS information to ICMP messages. This extension 45 has already been widely deployed and this memo is introduced to 46 describe existing practice. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 4. Application to TRACEROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6. MPLS Stack Entry Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 1. Conventions Used In This Document 64 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 65 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 66 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1]. 68 2. Introduction 70 IP routers use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [2] to 71 convey control information to source hosts. Network operators use 72 this information to diagnose routing problems. 74 When a router receives an undeliverable IP datagram, it can send an 75 ICMP message to the host that originated the datagram. The ICMP 76 message indicates why the datagram could not be delivered. It also 77 contains the IP header and leading payload octets of the "original 78 datagram" to which the ICMP message is a response. 80 MPLS Label Switching Routers (LSR) also use ICMP to convey control 81 information to source hosts. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 3032 [3] 82 describe the interaction between MPLS and ICMP. 84 When an LSR receives an undeliverable MPLS encapsulated datagram, it 85 removes the entire MPLS label stack, exposing the previously 86 encapsulated IP datagram. The LSR then submits the IP datagram to an 87 error processing module. Error processing can include ICMP message 88 generation. 90 The ICMP message indicates why the original datagram could not be 91 delivered. It also contains the IP header and leading octets of the 92 original datagram. 94 The ICMP message, however, contains no information regarding the MPLS 95 label stack that encapsulated the original datagram when it arrived 96 at the LSR. This omission is significant because the LSR would have 97 routed the original datagram based upon information contained by the 98 MPLS label stack. 100 This memo defines an extension to ICMP that permits an LSR to append 101 MPLS label stack information to ICMP messages. ICMP messages 102 regarding MPLS encapsulated datagrams SHOULD include the MPLS label 103 stack, as it arrived at the router that is sending the ICMP message. 104 The ICMP message MUST also include the IP header and leading payload 105 octets of the original datagram. 107 The ICMP extensions defined in this document must be preceded by by 108 an ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both 109 are defined in [4]. 111 3. Architectural Considerations 113 Only layer 3 information should be included in ICMP messages. MPLS 114 information can be included only in so much as MPLS participates in 115 layer 3 routing. Layer 2 information (e.g., ethernet, PPP) should 116 not be included in ICMP messages. 118 4. Application to TRACEROUTE 120 ICMP extensions defined in this memo support enhancements to 121 TRACEROUTE. The enhanced TRACEROUTE application, like older 122 implementations, indicates which nodes the original datagram visited 123 en route to its destination. It differs from older implementations 124 in that it also reflects the original datagram's MPLS encapsulation 125 status as it arrived at each node. 127 Figure 1 contains sample output from an enhanced TRACEROUTE 128 implementation. 130 > traceroute 10.100.6.1 132 traceroute to 10.100.6.1 (10.100.6.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 134 1 10.1.1.2 (10.1.1.2) 0.661 ms 0.618 ms 0.579 ms 136 2 10.1.12.2 (10.1.12.2) 0.861 ms 0.718 ms 0.679 ms 138 MPLS Label=100048 Exp=0 TTL=1 S=1 140 3 10.1.24.2 (10.1.24.2) 0.822 ms 0.731 ms 0.708 ms 142 MPLS Label=100016 Exp=0 TTL=1 S=1 144 4 10.100.6.1 (10.100.6.1) 0.961 ms 8.676 ms 0.875 ms 146 Figure 1: Enhanced TRACEROUTE Sample Output 148 5. Disclaimer 150 This memo does not define the general relationship between ICMP and 151 MPLS. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC3032 define this relationship. 153 The current memo does not define encapsulation specific TTL 154 manipulation procedures. It defers to Section 5.4 of RFC 3034 [5] 155 and Section 10 of RFC 3035 [6] in this matter. 157 When encapsulation specific TTL manipulation procedures defeat the 158 basic TRACEROUTE mechanism, they will also defeat enhanced TRACEROUTE 159 implementations. 161 6. MPLS Stack Entry Object 163 This section defines an ICMP extention object that can be appended to 164 the ICMP Time Exceeded and Destination Unreachable messages. A 165 single instance of the MPLS Entry Object class represents the entire 166 MPLS label stack, formatted exactly as it was when it arrived at the 167 LSR that sends the ICMP message 169 Figure 2 depicts the MPLS Stack Entry Object. It must be preceded by 170 an ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both 171 are defined in [4]. 173 In the object payload, octets 0-3 depict the first member of the MPLS 174 label stack. Each remaining member of the MPLS label stack is 175 represented by another 4 octets that share the same format. 177 MPLS Stack Entry Class = 1, C-Type = 1. 179 0 1 2 3 180 +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 181 | Label |EXP |S| TTL | 182 +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 183 | | 184 | // Remaining MPLS Stack Entries // | 185 | | 186 +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 188 Figure 2: MPLS Stack Entry Object 190 Label: 20 bits 192 Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits 194 S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit 195 TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits 197 7. Security Considerations 199 This memo presents no security considerations beyond those already 200 presented by current ICMP applications (e.g., traceroute). 202 8. IANA Considerations 204 IANA should should reserve an object class and object type for the 205 MPLS Stack Entry Object from the ICMP Extension Object registry. 207 9. Normative References 209 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 210 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 212 [2] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, 213 September 1981. 215 [3] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., 216 Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, 217 January 2001. 219 [4] Bonica, R., "Extending the Internet Control Message Protocol 220 (ICMP)", draft-bonica-internet-icmp-00 (work in progress), 221 September 2005. 223 [5] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on 224 Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034, January 2001. 226 [6] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., Swallow, G., 227 Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC 228 Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001. 230 Authors' Addresses 232 Ronald P. Bonica 233 Juniper Networks 234 2251 Corporate Park Drive 235 Herndon, VA 20171 236 US 238 Email: rbonica@juniper.net 240 Der-Hwa Gan 241 Juniper Networks 242 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 243 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 244 US 246 Email: dhg@juniper.net 248 Daniel C. Tappan 249 Cisco Systems, Inc. 250 250 Apollo Drive 251 Chelmsford, MA 01824 252 US 254 Email: tappan@cisco.com 256 Intellectual Property Statement 258 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 259 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 260 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 261 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 262 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 263 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 264 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 265 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 267 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 268 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 269 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 270 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 271 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 272 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 274 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 275 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 276 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 277 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 278 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 280 Disclaimer of Validity 282 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 283 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 284 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 285 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 286 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 287 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 288 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 290 Copyright Statement 292 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject 293 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 294 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 296 Acknowledgment 298 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 299 Internet Society.