idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-02.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8287, but the abstract doesn't seem to directly say this. It does mention RFC8287 though, so this could be OK. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (May 7, 2020) is 1450 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING' Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Work group N. Nainar 3 Internet-Draft C. Pignataro 4 Updates: 8287 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc. 5 Intended status: Standards Track M. Aissaoui 6 Expires: November 8, 2020 Nokia 7 May 7, 2020 9 OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping 10 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-02 12 Abstract 14 IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment IS Sub-TLV" registry and 15 "Protocol in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed 16 Mapping TLV" under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 17 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry. RFC8287 defines the 18 code point for different Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP). 20 This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID 21 Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP protocol is 22 OSPFv3. This document also clarifies that the existing codepoints of 23 these two TLVs called "OSPF" shall only be used for OSPFv2. 25 Status of This Memo 27 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 28 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 32 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 33 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2020. 42 Copyright Notice 44 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 45 document authors. All rights reserved. 47 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 48 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 49 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 50 publication of this document. Please review these documents 51 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 52 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 53 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 54 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 55 described in the Simplified BSD License. 57 Table of Contents 59 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 61 3. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 4. OSPFv3 protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5. OSPFv3 protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . 3 64 6. OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP Sub-TLVs . . . . . . 3 65 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 7.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed 68 Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 1. Introduction 76 IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment IS Sub-TLV" registry and 77 "Protocol in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed 78 Mapping TLV" under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 79 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]. 80 [RFC8287] defines the code point for different Interior Gateway 81 Protocol (IGP). 83 [RFC5340] describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) protocol to support IPv6. 84 [RFC5838] describes the mechanism to support multiple address 85 families (AFs) in OSPFv3. Accordingly OSPFv3 may be used to 86 advertise IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes. 88 This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID 89 Sub-TLV (Type 34, 35 and 36) and Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) 90 TLV when the IGP protocol is OSPFv3. 92 2. Terminology 94 This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029], 95 [RFC8287] and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the 96 same. 98 3. Requirements notation 100 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 101 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 102 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 103 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 104 capitals, as shown here. 106 4. OSPFv3 protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs 108 When the protocol field of the Segment ID Sub-TLV Type 34, 35 and 36 109 is set to TBD1, the responder MUST perform the FEC validation using 110 OSPFv3 as the IGP protocol. 112 The initiator MUST NOT set the protocol field of the Segment ID Sub- 113 TLV Type 35 as OSPFv2. 115 When the protocol field in the received Segment ID Sub-TLV Type 35 is 116 OSPFv2, the responder MAY treat the protocol value as 0 and process 117 the as defined in Section 7.4 of [RFC8287]. 119 5. OSPFv3 protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV 121 The protocol field of the Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV in 122 an echo reply is set to TBD2 when OSPFv3 is used to distribute the 123 label carried in the Downstream Label field. 125 6. OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP Sub-TLVs 127 Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines the code point for OSPF to be used in 128 the Protocol field of the Segment ID Sub-TLV. Section 6 of [RFC8287] 129 defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of 130 the DDMAP TLV. 132 This document clarifies that the above codepoints will be used only 133 for OSPFv2. 135 7. IANA Considerations 137 7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV 139 IANA is requested to assign one new code point of OSPFv3 from 140 "Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV" registry under the "Multi- 141 Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping 142 Parameters" registry: 144 Value Meaning Reference 145 ---------- ------- ------------ 146 TBD1 OSPFv3 This document 147 1 OSPF RFC8287 149 IANA is also requested to add a clarifying note for the existing 150 codepoint 1 (OSPF) as - "To be used for OSPFv2 only". 152 7.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV 154 IANA is requested to assign one new code point for OSPFv3 from 155 "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" 156 registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 157 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry: 159 Value Meaning Reference 160 ---------- --------- ------------ 161 TBD2 OSPFv3 This document 162 5 OSPF RFC8287 164 IANA is also requested to add a clarifying note for the existing 165 codepoint 5 (OSPF) as - "To be used for OSPFv2 only". 167 8. Security Considerations 169 This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional 170 security considerations. 172 9. Acknowledgement 174 The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Zafar Ali, Loa 175 Andersson, Andrew Molotchko and Deborah Brungard for their review and 176 suggestions. 178 10. Normative References 180 [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] 181 IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label 182 Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", 183 . 186 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 187 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 188 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 189 . 191 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF 192 for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, 193 . 195 [RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and 196 R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", 197 RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010, 198 . 200 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 201 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 202 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 203 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 204 . 206 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 207 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 208 May 2017, . 210 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 211 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 212 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 213 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 214 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 215 . 217 [RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., 218 Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment 219 Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, 220 July 2018, . 222 Authors' Addresses 224 Nagendra Kumar Nainar 225 Cisco Systems, Inc. 226 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 227 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 228 US 230 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 231 Carlos Pignataro 232 Cisco Systems, Inc. 233 7200-11 Kit Creek Road 234 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 235 US 237 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 239 Mustapha Aissaoui 240 Nokia 241 Canada 243 Email: mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com