idnits 2.17.1 draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-errata-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 11 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 17, 2018) is 2138 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) No issues found here. Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). 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) F. Iqbal 5 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. 6 Expires: December 19, 2018 A. Vainshtein 7 ECI Telecom 8 June 17, 2018 10 RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification 11 draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-errata-00 13 Abstract 15 RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for 16 Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier 17 (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack 18 Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure to 19 handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the 20 length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in 21 the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability 22 issues. 24 This document updates RFC8287 by clarifying the length of each 25 Segment ID Sub-TLVs defined in RFC8287. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2018. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 63 3. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. Length field clarification for Segment ID Sub-TLVs . . . . . 3 65 4.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 4.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 4.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 7. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 8. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 1. Introduction 77 [RFC8287] defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for 78 Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier 79 (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane. [RFC8287] proposes 3 Target FEC 80 Stack Sub-TLVs. While the standard defines the format and procedure 81 to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the 82 length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in 83 the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability 84 issues. 86 This document updates [RFC8287] by clarifying the length of each 87 Segment ID Sub-TLVs defined in [RFC8287]. 89 2. Terminology 91 This document uses the terminologies defined in 92 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], [RFC8029], [RFC8287] and so the 93 readers are expected to be familiar with the same. 95 3. Requirements notation 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 99 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 101 4. Length field clarification for Segment ID Sub-TLVs 103 Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines 3 different Segment ID Sub-TLVs that 104 will be included in Target FEC Stack TLV defined in [RFC8029]. The 105 length of each Sub-TLVs MUST be calculated as defined in this 106 section. 108 4.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV 110 The Sub-TLV length for IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID MUST be set to 8 as 111 shown in the below TLV format: 113 0 1 2 3 114 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 1 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 |Type = 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix SID)| Length = 8 | 117 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 | IPv4 prefix | 119 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 120 |Prefix Length | Protocol | Reserved | 121 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 123 4.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV 125 The Sub-TLV length for IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID MUST be set to 20 126 as shown in the below TLV format: 128 0 1 2 3 129 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 1 130 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 131 |Type = 35 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix SID)| Length = 20 | 132 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 133 | | 134 | | 135 | IPv6 Prefix | 136 | | 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 |Prefix Length | Protocol | Reserved | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 141 4.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID Sub-TLV 143 The Sub-TLV length for IGP-Adjacency Segment ID varies depending on 144 the Adjacency Type and Protocol. In any of the allowed combination 145 of Adjacency Type and Protocol, the sub-TLV length MUST be calculated 146 by including 2 octets of Reserved field. Below is a table that list 147 the length for different combinations. 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 150 | Protocol | Length for Adj.Type | 151 + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 | | Parallel | IPv4 | IPv6 | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | OSPF | 20 | 20 | 44 | 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 156 | ISIS | 24 | 24 | 48 | 157 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 158 | Any | 20 | 20 | 44 | 159 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 161 For example, when the Adj. Type is set to Parallel Adjacency and the 162 Protocol is set to 0, the Sub-TLV will be as below: 164 0 1 2 3 165 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 1 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 167 |Type = 36 (IGP-Adjacency SID) | Length = 20 | 168 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 169 | Adj. Type = 1 | Protocol =0 | Reserved | 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | Local Interface ID (4 octets) | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Remote Interface ID (4 octets) | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | Advertising Node Identifier (4 octets) | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 | Receiving Node Identifier (4 octets) | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 5. IANA Considerations 182 This document does not introduce any IANA consideration. 184 6. Security Considerations 186 This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any security 187 considerations. 189 7. Contributors 191 The below individuals contributed to this document: 193 Zafar Ali, Cisco Systems, Inc. 195 8. Acknowledgement 197 To be Updated 199 9. Normative References 201 [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] 202 Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., 203 Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing 204 Architecture", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-15 (work 205 in progress), January 2018. 207 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 208 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 209 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 210 . 212 [RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., 213 Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label 214 Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, 215 DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, 216 . 218 [RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, 219 N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) 220 Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and 221 IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data 222 Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, 223 . 225 Authors' Addresses 227 Nagendra Kumar Nainar 228 Cisco Systems, Inc. 229 7200-12 Kit Creek Road 230 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 231 US 233 Email: naikumar@cisco.com 235 Carlos Pignataro 236 Cisco Systems, Inc. 237 7200-11 Kit Creek Road 238 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 239 US 241 Email: cpignata@cisco.com 243 Faisal Iqbal 244 Cisco Systems, Inc. 245 2000 Innovation Dr 246 Ottawa, ON 3E8 247 Canada 249 Email: faiqbal@cisco.com 251 Alexander Vainshtein 252 ECI Telecom 253 Israel 255 Email: vainshtein.alex@gmail.com