Internet DRAFT - draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint
draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint
Network Work group N. Nainar
Internet-Draft C. Pignataro
Updates: 8287 (if approved) Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track M. Aissaoui
Expires: September 8, 2020 Nokia
March 7, 2020
OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping
draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-ospfv3-codepoint-01
Abstract
IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment IS Sub-TLV" registry and
"Protocol in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV" under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry. RFC8287 defines the
code point for different Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP).
This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
Sub-TLV and Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV when the IGP protocol is
OSPFv3. This document also requests to rename the existing
codepoints of these two TLVs from OSPF to OSPFv2.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
Nainar, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping March 2020
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. OSPFv3 protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. OSPFv3 protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . 3
6. OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP Sub-TLVs . . . . . . 3
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Introduction
IANA has created "Protocol in the Segment IS Sub-TLV" registry and
"Protocol in the Label Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV" under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING].
[RFC8287] defines the code point for different Interior Gateway
Protocol (IGP).
[RFC5340] describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) protocol to support IPv6.
[RFC5838] describes the mechanism to support multiple address
families (AFs) in OSPFv3. Accordingly OSPFv3 may be used to
advertise IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes.
This document proposes the code point to be used in the Segment ID
Sub-TLV (Type 34, 35 and 36) and Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP)
TLV when the IGP protocol is OSPFv3.
2. Terminology
This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029],
[RFC8287] and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the
same.
Nainar, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping March 2020
3. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
4. OSPFv3 protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs
When the protocol field of the Segment ID Sub-TLV Type 34, 35 and 36
is set to TBD1, the responder MUST perform the FEC validation using
OSPFv3 as the IGP protocol.
The initiator MUST NOT set the protocol field of the Segment ID Sub-
TLV Type 35 as OSPFv2.
When the protocol field in the received Segment ID Sub-TLV Type 35 is
OSPFv2, the responder MAY treat the protocol value as 0 and process
the as defined in Section 7.4 of [RFC8287].
5. OSPFv3 protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
The protocol field of the Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV in
an echo reply is set to TBD2 when OSPFv3 is used to distribute the
label carried in the Downstream Label field.
6. OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP Sub-TLVs
Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines the code point for OSPF to be used in
the Protocol field of the Segment ID Sub-TLV. Section 6 of [RFC8287]
defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of
the DDMAP TLV.
This document renames the above codepoints from OSPF to OSPFv2.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV
IANA is requested to assign one new code point of OSPFv3 from
"Protocol in the Segment ID sub-TLV" registry under the "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
Parameters" registry:
Nainar, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping March 2020
Value Meaning Reference
---------- ------- ------------
TBD1 OSPFv3 This document
1 OSPFv2 RFC8287
IANA is also requested to rename the existing codepoint as OSPFv2.
7.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
IANA is requested to assign one new code point for OSPFv3 from
"Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV"
registry under the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry:
Value Meaning Reference
---------- --------- ------------
TBD2 OSPFv3 This document
5 OSPFv2 RFC8287
IANA is also requested to rename the existing codepoint as OSPFv2.
8. Security Considerations
This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional
security considerations.
9. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Zafar Ali, Loa
Andersson and Andrew Molotchko for their review and suggestions.
10. Normative References
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
Nainar, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping March 2020
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and
R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8287] Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya,
N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and
IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data
Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.
[RFC8402] Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
Authors' Addresses
Nagendra Kumar Nainar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: naikumar@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Nainar, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OSPFv3 CodePoint for MPLS LSP Ping March 2020
Mustapha Aissaoui
Nokia
Canada
Email: mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com
Nainar, et al. Expires September 8, 2020 [Page 6]
