idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-00.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 18. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5, updated by RFC 4748 on line 310. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 280. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 287. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 293. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC3036]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust 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 (January 2007) is 6309 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3036 (Obsoleted by RFC 5036) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-AF' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4447 (ref. 'PWE3') (Obsoleted by RFC 8077) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-00 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Bob Thomas 2 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 3 Expiration Date: July 2007 4 Ina Minei 5 Juniper Networks 7 January 2007 9 LDP Typed Wildcard FEC 11 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-typed-wildcard-00.txt 13 Status of this Memo 15 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 16 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 17 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 18 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 22 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 23 Drafts. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 33 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 34 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (C) The IETF TRUST (2007). 40 Abstract 42 The LDP specification [RFC3036] for the Wildcard FEC element has 43 several deficiencies. This document corrects those deficiencies. In 44 addition, it specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC for the Prefix FEC 45 Element Type defined in RFC3036. 47 Table of Contents 49 1 Introduction .......................................... 2 50 2 Specification Language ................................ 3 51 3 The Typed Wildcard FEC Element ........................ 3 52 4 Procedures for the Typed Wildcard FEC Element ......... 4 53 5 Typed Wildcard FEC Element for RFC3036 Prefix FEC Element 5 54 6 IANA Considerations ................................... 5 55 7 Security Considerations ............................... 6 56 8 Acknowledgements ...................................... 6 57 9 References ............................................ 6 58 10 Author Information .................................... 7 59 11 Intellectual Property Statement ....................... 7 60 12 Full Copyright Statement .............................. 8 62 1. Introduction 64 LDP [RFC3036] distributes labels for Forwarding Equivalence Classes 65 (FECs). LDP uses FEC TLVs in LDP messages to specify FECs. An LDP 66 FEC TLV includes 1 or more FEC Elements. A FEC element includes a 67 FEC type and an optional type-dependent value. 69 RFC3036 specifies two FEC types (Wildcard and Prefix), and other 70 documents specify additional FEC types; e.g., see [PWE3] [MLDP]. 72 As specified in RFC3036 the Wildcard FEC Element refers to all FECs 73 relative to an optional constraint. The only constraint RFC3036 74 specifies is one that limits the scope of the Wildcard FEC Element to 75 "all FECs bound to a given label". 77 The RFC3036 specification of the Wildcard FEC Element has the 78 following deficiencies which limit its utility: 80 1. The Wildcard FEC Element is untyped. There are situations 81 where it would be useful to be able to refer to all FECs of a 82 given type. 84 2. Use of the Wildcard FEC Element is limited to Label Withdraw 85 and Label Release messages only. There are situations where it 86 would be useful in Label Request messages. 88 This document addresses these deficiencies by defining a Typed 89 Wildcard FEC Element and procedures for its use. 91 2. Specification Language 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 97 3. The Typed Wildcard FEC Element 99 The Typed Wildcard FEC Element refers to all FECs of a given type 100 relative to an optional constraint. The constraint, if present, is 101 determined from the context in which the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 102 appears. 104 The format of the Typed Wildcard FEC Element is: 106 0 1 2 107 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 108 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 | Typed (IANA) | FEC Element | Len FEC Type | | 110 | Wildcard | Type | Info | | 111 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 112 | | 113 | Additional FEC Type-specific Information | 114 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | | 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 where: 120 Typed Wildcard: One octet FEC Element type to be assigned by IANA. 122 FEC Element Type: One octet FEC Element Type that specifies the 123 FEC Element Type to be wildcarded. 125 Len FEC Type Info: One octet that specifies the length of the FEC 126 Type Specific information field. MUST be 0 if there is no 127 Additional FEC Type-specific Information. 129 Additional FEC Type-specific Information: Additional information 130 specific to the FEC Element Type required to fully specify the 131 Typed Wildcard. 133 Specification of the length and format of Additional FEC Type 134 Specific Information for particular FEC Element Types is outside of 135 the scope of this document. 137 4. Procedures for the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 139 It is the responsibility of the designer of the FEC Element Type to 140 specify whether typed wildcarding is required for the FEC Element 141 Type. When typed wildcarding is supported for a FEC Element Type it 142 is the responsibility of the designer to specify the length and 143 format of any Additional FEC Type Specific Information. 145 When a FEC TLV contains a Typed Wildcard FEC Element the Typed 146 Wildcard FEC Element MUST be the only FEC Element in the TLV. 148 An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 149 MUST support its use in Label Request, Label Withdraw and Label 150 Release messages. 152 Receipt of a Label Request message with a FEC TLV containing a Typed 153 Wildcard FEC Element is interpreted as a request to send a Label 154 Mapping for all FECs of the type specified by the FEC Element type in 155 the Typed Wildcard FEC Element encoding. 157 An LDP implementation that supports the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 158 MUST support the following constraints whenever a Typed Wildcard FEC 159 appears in a Label Withdraw or Label Release message: 161 1. If the message carries an optional Label TLV the Typed Wildcard 162 FEC Element refers to all FECs of the specified FEC type bound to 163 the specified label. 165 2. If the message has no Label TLV the Typed Wildcard FEC Element 166 refers to all FECs of the specified FEC type. 168 Backwards compatibility with a router not supporting the Typed 169 Wildcard FEC element is ensured by the FEC procedures defined in 170 RFC3036. Quoting from RFC3036: 172 "If it" [an LSR] "encounters a FEC Element type it cannot decode, 173 it SHOULD stop decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the 174 message containing the TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" 175 Notification message to its LDP peer signaling an error." 177 A router receiving a FEC TLV containing a Typed Wildcard FEC element 178 for a FEC Element Type that it either doesn't support or for a FEC 179 Element Type that doesn't support the use of wildcarding MUST stop 180 decoding the FEC TLV, abort processing the message containing the 181 TLV, and send an "Unknown FEC" Notification message to its LDP peer 182 signaling an error. 184 5. Typed Wildcard FEC Element for RFC3036 Prefix FEC Element 186 RFC3036 defines the Prefix FEC Element but it does not specify a 187 Typed Wildcard for it. This section specifies the Typed Wildcard FEC 188 Element for RFC3036 Prefix Elements. 190 The format of the Prefix FEC Typed Wildcard FEC ("Prefix FEC 191 Wildcard" for short) is: 192 0 1 2 3 193 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 194 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 | Typed WCard | Prefix (2) | 2 | Address... | 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | ...Family | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 200 Address Family: Two octet quantity containing a value from ADDRESS 201 FAMILY NUMBERS in [IANA-AF]. 203 The procedures of Section 4 apply to the Prefix FEC Wildcard. 205 6. IANA Considerations 207 The Typed Wildcard FEC Element requires a code point from the LDP FEC 208 Type Name Space. IANA manages the FEC TYPE name space as recommended 209 by the following from [RFC3036]: 211 "FEC Type Name Space 213 The range for FEC types is 0 - 255. 215 Following the policies outlined in [RFC3036], FEC types in the 216 range 0 - 127 are allocated through an IETF Consensus action, 217 types in the range 128 - 191 are allocated as First Come First 218 Served, and types in the range 192 - 255 are reserved for Private 219 Use." 221 The authors recommend that the code point 0x04 from the IETF 222 Consensus range be assigned to the Typed Wildcard FEC Element. 224 7. Security Considerations 226 No security considerations beyond those that apply to the base LDP 227 specification and described in [RFC3036] apply to use of the Typed 228 Wildcard FEC Element defined in this document. 230 8. Acknowledgements 232 The authors wish to thank Yakov Rehkter for suggesting that the 233 deficiencies of the Wildcard FEC be addressed. 235 9. References 237 Normative References 239 [RFC3036] Andersson, L., Doolan, P., Feldman, N., Fredette, A. and 240 Thomas, B., "LDP Specification", RFC 3036, January 2001. 242 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 243 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997. 245 [IANA-AF] http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers 247 Informative References 249 [PWE3] Martini, L., Editor, "Pseudowire Setup and Maintenance Using 250 the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP)", RFC 4447, April 2006. 252 [MLDP] Minei, I., Wijnamds, I., Editors, "Label Distribution 253 Protocol Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and Multipoint-to- 254 Multipoint Label Switched Paths", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-00.txt, 255 Work in Progress, June 2006. 257 10. Author Information 259 Bob Thomas 260 Cisco Systems, Inc. 261 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 262 Boxborough MA 01719 263 Email: rhthomas@cisco.com 265 Ina Minei 266 Juniper Networks 267 1194 North Mathilda Ave. 268 Sunnyvale, CA 94089 269 Email: ina@juniper.net 271 11. Intellectual Property Statement 273 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 274 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 275 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 276 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 277 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 278 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 279 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 280 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 282 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 283 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 284 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 285 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 286 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 287 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 289 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 290 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 291 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 292 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 293 ipr@ietf.org. 295 12. Full Copyright Statement 297 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 299 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 300 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 301 retain all their rights. 303 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 304 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 305 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST 306 AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, 307 EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT 308 THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY 309 IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 310 PURPOSE.