idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-06.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 276. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 287. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 294. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 300. ** 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 issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses. Maybe there should be IPv6 examples, too? 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 26, 2006) is 6422 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-bonica-internet-icmp-08 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 8 comments (--).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 Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks 5 Expires: March 30, 2007 D. Tappan 6 Cisco Systems, Inc. 7 September 26, 2006 9 ICMP Extensions for MultiProtocol Label Switching 10 draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-06 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 30, 2007. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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 an 108 ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both are 109 defined in [4]. 111 The ICMP extensions defined in this document is equally applicable to 112 the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) [7]. 114 3. Architectural Considerations 116 Only layer 3 information should be included in ICMP messages. MPLS 117 information can be included only in so much as MPLS participates in 118 layer 3 routing. Layer 2 information (e.g., ethernet, PPP) should 119 not be included in ICMP messages. 121 4. Application to TRACEROUTE 123 ICMP extensions defined in this memo support enhancements to 124 TRACEROUTE. The enhanced TRACEROUTE application, like older 125 implementations, indicates which nodes the original datagram visited 126 en route to its destination. It differs from older implementations 127 in that it also reflects the original datagram's MPLS encapsulation 128 status as it arrived at each node. 130 Figure 1 contains sample output from an enhanced TRACEROUTE 131 implementation. 133 > traceroute 192.0.2.1 135 traceroute to 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 137 1 192.0.2.13 (192.0.2.13) 0.661 ms 0.618 ms 0.579 ms 139 2 192.0.2.9 (192.0.2.9) 0.861 ms 0.718 ms 0.679 ms 141 MPLS Label=100048 Exp=0 TTL=1 S=1 143 3 192.0.2.5 (192.0.2.5) 0.822 ms 0.731 ms 0.708 ms 145 MPLS Label=100016 Exp=0 TTL=1 S=1 147 4 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1) 0.961 ms 8.676 ms 0.875 ms 149 Figure 1: Enhanced TRACEROUTE Sample Output 151 5. Disclaimer 153 This memo does not define the general relationship between ICMP and 154 MPLS. Section 2.3 of RFC3032 defines this relationship. 156 The current memo does not define encapsulation specific TTL 157 manipulation procedures. It defers to Section 5.4 of RFC 3034 [5] 158 and Section 10 of RFC 3035 [6] in this matter. 160 When encapsulation specific TTL manipulation procedures defeat the 161 basic TRACEROUTE mechanism, they will also defeat enhanced TRACEROUTE 162 implementations. 164 6. MPLS Stack Entry Object 166 This section defines an ICMP extention object that can be appended to 167 the ICMP Time Exceeded and Destination Unreachable messages. A 168 single instance of the MPLS Entry Object class represents the entire 169 MPLS label stack, formatted exactly as it was when it arrived at the 170 LSR that sends the ICMP message. 172 Figure 2 depicts the MPLS Stack Entry Object. It must be preceded by 173 an ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both 174 are defined in [4]. 176 In the object payload, octets 0-3 depict the first member of the MPLS 177 label stack. Each remaining member of the MPLS label stack is 178 represented by another 4 octets that share the same format. 180 MPLS Stack Entry Class = 1, C-Type = 1. 182 0 1 2 3 183 +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 184 | Label |EXP |S| TTL | 185 +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 186 | | 187 | // Remaining MPLS Stack Entries // | 188 | | 189 +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ 191 Figure 2: MPLS Stack Entry Object 193 Label: 20 bits 195 Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits 196 S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit 198 TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits 200 7. Security Considerations 202 This memo presents no security considerations beyond those already 203 presented by current ICMP applications (e.g., traceroute). 205 8. IANA Considerations 207 IANA should should reserve an object class and object type for the 208 MPLS Stack Entry Object from the ICMP Extension Object registry. 210 9. Normative References 212 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 213 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 215 [2] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, 216 September 1981. 218 [3] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., 219 Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, 220 January 2001. 222 [4] Bonica, R., "Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages", 223 draft-bonica-internet-icmp-08 (work in progress), August 2006. 225 [5] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on 226 Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034, January 2001. 228 [6] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., Swallow, G., 229 Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC 230 Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001. 232 [7] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message 233 Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) 234 Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 236 Authors' Addresses 238 Ronald P. Bonica 239 Juniper Networks 240 2251 Corporate Park Drive 241 Herndon, VA 20171 242 US 244 Email: rbonica@juniper.net 246 Der-Hwa Gan 247 Juniper Networks 248 1194 N. Mathilda Ave. 249 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 250 US 252 Email: dhg@juniper.net 254 Daniel C. Tappan 255 Cisco Systems, Inc. 256 250 Apollo Drive 257 Chelmsford, MA 01824 258 US 260 Email: tappan@cisco.com 262 Full Copyright Statement 264 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 266 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 267 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 268 retain all their rights. 270 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 271 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 272 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 273 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 274 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 275 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 276 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 278 Intellectual Property 280 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 281 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 282 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 283 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 284 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 285 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 286 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 287 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 289 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 290 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 291 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 292 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 293 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 294 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 296 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 297 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 298 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 299 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 300 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 302 Acknowledgment 304 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 305 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).