[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 4950
MPLS Working Group R. Bonica
Internet-Draft D. Gan
Intended status: Informational Juniper Networks
Expires: March 30, 2007 D. Tappan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
September 26, 2006
ICMP Extensions for MultiProtocol Label Switching
draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-06
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 30, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This memo defines an extension to ICMP that permits Label Switching
Routers to append MPLS information to ICMP messages. This extension
has already been widely deployed and this memo is introduced to
describe existing practice.
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
Table of Contents
1. Conventions Used In This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architectural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Application to TRACEROUTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. MPLS Stack Entry Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
1. Conventions Used In This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1].
2. Introduction
IP routers use the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [2] to
convey control information to source hosts. Network operators use
this information to diagnose routing problems.
When a router receives an undeliverable IP datagram, it can send an
ICMP message to the host that originated the datagram. The ICMP
message indicates why the datagram could not be delivered. It also
contains the IP header and leading payload octets of the "original
datagram" to which the ICMP message is a response.
MPLS Label Switching Routers (LSR) also use ICMP to convey control
information to source hosts. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of RFC 3032 [3]
describe the interaction between MPLS and ICMP.
When an LSR receives an undeliverable MPLS encapsulated datagram, it
removes the entire MPLS label stack, exposing the previously
encapsulated IP datagram. The LSR then submits the IP datagram to an
error processing module. Error processing can include ICMP message
generation.
The ICMP message indicates why the original datagram could not be
delivered. It also contains the IP header and leading octets of the
original datagram.
The ICMP message, however, contains no information regarding the MPLS
label stack that encapsulated the original datagram when it arrived
at the LSR. This omission is significant because the LSR would have
routed the original datagram based upon information contained by the
MPLS label stack.
This memo defines an extension to ICMP that permits an LSR to append
MPLS label stack information to ICMP messages. ICMP messages
regarding MPLS encapsulated datagrams SHOULD include the MPLS label
stack, as it arrived at the router that is sending the ICMP message.
The ICMP message MUST also include the IP header and leading payload
octets of the original datagram.
The ICMP extensions defined in this document must be preceded by an
ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both are
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
defined in [4].
The ICMP extensions defined in this document is equally applicable to
the Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 (ICMPv6) [7].
3. Architectural Considerations
Only layer 3 information should be included in ICMP messages. MPLS
information can be included only in so much as MPLS participates in
layer 3 routing. Layer 2 information (e.g., ethernet, PPP) should
not be included in ICMP messages.
4. Application to TRACEROUTE
ICMP extensions defined in this memo support enhancements to
TRACEROUTE. The enhanced TRACEROUTE application, like older
implementations, indicates which nodes the original datagram visited
en route to its destination. It differs from older implementations
in that it also reflects the original datagram's MPLS encapsulation
status as it arrived at each node.
Figure 1 contains sample output from an enhanced TRACEROUTE
implementation.
> traceroute 192.0.2.1
traceroute to 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.0.2.13 (192.0.2.13) 0.661 ms 0.618 ms 0.579 ms
2 192.0.2.9 (192.0.2.9) 0.861 ms 0.718 ms 0.679 ms
MPLS Label=100048 Exp=0 TTL=1 S=1
3 192.0.2.5 (192.0.2.5) 0.822 ms 0.731 ms 0.708 ms
MPLS Label=100016 Exp=0 TTL=1 S=1
4 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1) 0.961 ms 8.676 ms 0.875 ms
Figure 1: Enhanced TRACEROUTE Sample Output
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
5. Disclaimer
This memo does not define the general relationship between ICMP and
MPLS. Section 2.3 of RFC3032 defines this relationship.
The current memo does not define encapsulation specific TTL
manipulation procedures. It defers to Section 5.4 of RFC 3034 [5]
and Section 10 of RFC 3035 [6] in this matter.
When encapsulation specific TTL manipulation procedures defeat the
basic TRACEROUTE mechanism, they will also defeat enhanced TRACEROUTE
implementations.
6. MPLS Stack Entry Object
This section defines an ICMP extention object that can be appended to
the ICMP Time Exceeded and Destination Unreachable messages. A
single instance of the MPLS Entry Object class represents the entire
MPLS label stack, formatted exactly as it was when it arrived at the
LSR that sends the ICMP message.
Figure 2 depicts the MPLS Stack Entry Object. It must be preceded by
an ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both
are defined in [4].
In the object payload, octets 0-3 depict the first member of the MPLS
label stack. Each remaining member of the MPLS label stack is
represented by another 4 octets that share the same format.
MPLS Stack Entry Class = 1, C-Type = 1.
0 1 2 3
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Label |EXP |S| TTL |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| |
| // Remaining MPLS Stack Entries // |
| |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
Figure 2: MPLS Stack Entry Object
Label: 20 bits
Exp: Experimental Use, 3 bits
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
S: Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
TTL: Time to Live, 8 bits
7. Security Considerations
This memo presents no security considerations beyond those already
presented by current ICMP applications (e.g., traceroute).
8. IANA Considerations
IANA should should reserve an object class and object type for the
MPLS Stack Entry Object from the ICMP Extension Object registry.
9. Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792,
September 1981.
[3] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D.,
Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032,
January 2001.
[4] Bonica, R., "Modifying ICMP to Support Multi-part Messages",
draft-bonica-internet-icmp-08 (work in progress), August 2006.
[5] Conta, A., Doolan, P., and A. Malis, "Use of Label Switching on
Frame Relay Networks Specification", RFC 3034, January 2001.
[6] Davie, B., Lawrence, J., McCloghrie, K., Rosen, E., Swallow, G.,
Rekhter, Y., and P. Doolan, "MPLS using LDP and ATM VC
Switching", RFC 3035, January 2001.
[7] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message
Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
Authors' Addresses
Ronald P. Bonica
Juniper Networks
2251 Corporate Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: rbonica@juniper.net
Der-Hwa Gan
Juniper Networks
1194 N. Mathilda Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Email: dhg@juniper.net
Daniel C. Tappan
Cisco Systems, Inc.
250 Apollo Drive
Chelmsford, MA 01824
US
Email: tappan@cisco.com
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICMP MPLS September 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Bonica, et al. Expires March 30, 2007 [Page 8]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/