[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 3032

Network Working Group                                      Eric C. Rosen
Internet Draft                                             Yakov Rekhter
Expiration Date: May 1998                                  Daniel Tappan
                                                          Dino Farinacci
                                                            Guy Fedorkow
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                                 Tony Li
                                                  Juniper Networks, Inc.

                                                              Alex Conta
                                                     Lucent Technologies

                                                           November 1997


                       MPLS Label Stack Encoding


                  draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  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."

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe),
   munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or
   ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast).

Abstract

   ''Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)'' [1,2,3] requires a set of
   procedures for augmenting network layer packets with ''label stacks'',
   thereby turning them into ''labeled packets''.  Routers which support
   MPLS are known as ''Label Switching Routers'', or ''LSRs''.  In order to
   transmit a labeled packet on a particular data link, an LSR must
   support an encoding technique which, given a label stack and a
   network layer packet, produces a labeled packet.  This document



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 1]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


   specifies the encoding to be used by an LSR in order to transmit
   labeled packets on PPP data links and possibly on other data links as
   well.  On some data links, the label at the top of the stack may be
   encoded in a different manner, but the techniques described here MUST
   be used to encode the remainder of the label stack.  This document
   also specifies rules and procedures for processing the various fields
   of the label stack encoding.



Table of Contents

    1      Introduction  ...........................................   3
    1.1    Specification of Requirements  ..........................   3
    2      The Label Stack  ........................................   4
    2.1    Encoding the Label Stack  ...............................   4
    2.2    Determining the Network Layer Protocol  .................   7
    2.3    Processing the Time to Live Field  ......................   7
    2.3.1  Definitions  ............................................   7
    2.3.2  Protocol-independent rules  .............................   7
    2.3.3  IP-dependent rules  .....................................   8
    3      Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery  ...................   8
    3.1    Terminology  ............................................   9
    3.2    Maximum Initially Labeled IP Datagram Size  .............  10
    3.3    When are Labeled IP Datagrams Too Big?  .................  11
    3.4    Processing Labeled IPv4 Datagrams which are Too Big  ....  12
    3.5    Processing Labeled IPv6 Datagrams which are Too Big  ....  13
    3.6    Implications with respect to Path MTU Discovery  ........  14
    3.6.1  Tunneling through a Transit Routing Domain  .............  14
    3.6.2  Tunneling Private Addresses through a Public Backbone  ..  14
    4      Transporting Labeled Packets over PPP  ..................  15
    4.1    Introduction  ...........................................  15
    4.2    A PPP Network Control Protocol for MPLS  ................  16
    4.3    Sending Labeled Packets  ................................  17
    4.4    Label Switching Control Protocol Configuration Options  .  17
    5      Security Considerations  ................................  18
    6      Authors' Addresses  .....................................  18
    7      References  .............................................  19













Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 2]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


1. Introduction

   "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)" [1,2,3] requires a set of
   procedures for augmenting network layer packets with "label stacks",
   thereby turning them into "labeled packets".  Routers which support
   MPLS are known as "Label Switching Routers", or "LSRs".  In order to
   transmit a labeled packet on a particular data link, an LSR must
   support an encoding technique which, given a label stack and a
   network layer packet, produces a labeled packet.

   This document specifies the encoding to be used by an LSR in order to
   transmit labeled packets on PPP data links.  The specified encoding
   may also be useful for other data links as well.

   This document also specifies rules and procedures for processing the
   various fields of the label stack encoding.  Since MPLS is
   independent of any particular network layer protocol, the majority of
   such procedures are also protocol-independent.  A few, however, do
   differ for different protocols.  In this document, we specify the
   protocol-independent procedures, and we specify the protocol-
   dependent procedures for IPv4 and IPv6.

   LSRs that are implemented on certain switching devices (such as ATM
   switches) may use different encoding techniques for encoding the top
   one or two entries of the label stack.  When the label stack has
   additional entries, however, the encoding technique described in this
   document may be used for the additional label stack entries.


1.1. Specification of Requirements

   In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
   of the specification.  These words are often capitalized.

        MUST

        This word, or the adjective "required", means that the
        definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

        MUST NOT

        This phrase means that the definition is an absolute prohibition
        of the specification.

        SHOULD

        This word, or the adjective "recommended", means that there may
        exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 3]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


        item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully
        weighed before choosing a different course.

        MAY

        This word, or the adjective "optional", means that this item is
        one of an allowed set of alternatives.  An implementation which
        does not include this option MUST be prepared to interoperate
        with another implementation which does include the option.


2. The Label Stack

2.1. Encoding the Label Stack

   The label stack is represented as a sequence of "label stack
   entries".  Each label stack entry is represented by 4 octets.  This
   is shown in Figure 1.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Label
   |                Label                  | CoS |S|       TTL     | Stack
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Entry

                       Label:  Label Value, 20 bits
                       CoS:    Class of Service, 3 bits
                       S:      Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
                       TTL:    Time to Live, 8 bits

                                 Figure 1


   The label stack entries appear AFTER the data link layer headers, but
   BEFORE any network layer headers.  The top of the label stack appears
   earliest in the packet, and the bottom appears latest.  The network
   layer packet immediately follows the label stack entry which has the
   S bit set.

   Each label stack entry is broken down into the following fields:

      1. Bottom of Stack (S)

         This bit is set to one for the last entry in the label stack
         (i.e., for the bottom of the stack), and zero for all other
         label stack entries.





Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 4]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


      2. Time to Live (TTL)

         This eight-bit field is used to encode a time-to-live value.
         The processing of this field is described in section 2.3.

      3. Class of Service (CoS)

         This three-bit field is used to identify a "Class of Service".
         The setting of this field is intended to affect the scheduling
         and/or discard algorithms which are applied to the packet as it
         is transmitted through the network.

         When an unlabeled packet is initially labeled, the value
         assigned to the CoS field in the label stack entry is
         determined by policy.  Some possible policies are:

           - the CoS value is a function of the IP ToS value

           - the CoS value is a function of the packet's input interface

           - the CoS value is a function of the "flow type"

         Of course, many other policies are also possible.

         When an additional label is pushed onto the stack of a packet
         that is already labeled:

           - in general, the value of the CoS field in the new top stack
             entry should be equal to the value of the CoS field of the
             old top stack entry;

           - however, in some cases, most likely at boundaries between
             network service providers, the value of the CoS field in
             the new top stack entry may be determined by policy.

      4. Label Value

         This 20-bit field carries the actual value of the Label.

         When a labeled packet is received, the label value at the top
         of the stack is looked up.  As a result of a successful lookup
         one learns:

            (a) information needed to forward the packet, such as the
                next hop and the outgoing data link encapsulation;
                however, the precise queue to put the packet on, or
                information as to how to schedule the packet, may be a
                function of both the label value AND the CoS field



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 5]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


                value;

            (b) the operation to be performed on the label stack before
                forwarding; this operation may be to replace the top
                label stack entry with another, or to pop an entry off
                the label stack, or to replace the top label stack entry
                and then to push one or more additional entries on the
                label stack.

         There are several reserved label values:

              i. A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label".
                 This label value is only legal when it is the sole
                 label stack entry.  It indicates that the label stack
                 must be popped, and the forwarding of the packet must
                 then be based on the IPv4 header.

             ii. A value of 1 represents the "Router Alert Label".  This
                 label value is legal anywhere in the label stack except
                 at the bottom.  When a received packet contains this
                 label value at the top of the label stack, it is
                 delivered to a local software module for processing.
                 The actual forwarding of the packet is determined by
                 the label beneath it in the stack.  However, if the
                 packet is forwarded further, the Router Alert Label
                 should be pushed back onto the label stack before
                 forwarding.  The use of this label is analogous to the
                 use of the "Router Alert Option" in IP packets [7].
                 Since this label cannot occur at the bottom of the
                 stack, it is not associated with a particular network
                 layer protocol.

            iii. A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label".
                 This label value is only legal when it is the sole
                 label stack entry.  It indicates that the label stack
                 must be popped, and the forwarding of the packet must
                 then be based on the IPv6 header.

             iv. A value of 3 represents the "Implicit NULL Label".
                 This is a label that an LSR may assign and distribute,
                 but which never actually appears in the encapsulation.
                 When an LSR would otherwise replace the label at the
                 top of the stack with a new label, but the new label is
                 "Implicit NULL", the LSR will pop the stack instead of
                 doing the replacement.  Although this value may never
                 appear in the encapsulation, it needs to be specified
                 in the Label Distribution Protocol, so a value is
                 reserved.



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 6]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


              v. Values 4-16 are reserved.


2.2. Determining the Network Layer Protocol

   When the last label is popped from the label stack, it is necessary
   to determine the particular network layer protocol which is being
   carried.  Note that the label stack entries carry no explicit field
   to identify the network layer header.  Rather, this must be inferable
   from the value of the label which is popped from the bottom of the
   stack.  This means that when the first label is pushed onto a network
   layer packet, the label must be one which is used ONLY for packets of
   a particular network layer.  Furthermore, whenever that label is
   replaced by another label value during a packet's transit, the new
   value must also be one which is used only for packets of that network
   layer.


2.3. Processing the Time to Live Field

2.3.1. Definitions

   The "incoming TTL" of a labeled packet is defined to be the value of
   the TTL field of the top label stack entry when the packet is
   received.

   The "outgoing TTL" of a labeled packet is defined to be the larger
   of:

      (a) one less than the incoming TTL,
      (b) zero.


2.3.2. Protocol-independent rules

   If the outgoing TTL of a labeled packet is 0, then the labeled packet
   MUST NOT be further forwarded; the packet's lifetime in the network
   is considered to have expired.

   Depending on the label value in the label stack entry, the packet MAY
   be silently discarded, or the packet MAY have its label stack
   stripped off, and passed as an unlabeled packet to the ordinary
   processing for network layer packets which have exceeded their
   maximum lifetime in the network.  However, even if the label stack is
   stripped, the packet MUST NOT be further forwarded.

   When a labeled packet is forwarded, the TTL field of the label stack
   entry at the top of the label stack must be set to the outgoing TTL



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 7]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


   value.

   Note that the outgoing TTL value is a function solely of the incoming
   TTL value, and is independent of whether any labels are pushed or
   popped before forwarding.  There is no significance to the value of
   the TTL field in any label stack entry which is not at the top of the
   stack.


2.3.3. IP-dependent rules

   We define the "IP TTL" field to be the value of the IPv4 TTL field,
   or the value of the IPv6 Hop Limit field, whichever is applicable.

   When an IP packet is first labeled, the TTL field of the label stack
   entry MUST BE set to the value of the IP TTL field.  (If the IP TTL
   field needs to be decremented, as part of the IP processing, it is
   assumed that this has already been done.)

   When a label is popped, and the resulting label stack is empty, then
   the value of the IP TTL field MUST BE replaced with the outgoing TTL
   value, as defined above.  In IPv4 this also requires modification of
   the IP header checksum.


3. Fragmentation and Path MTU Discovery

   Just as it is possible to receive an unlabeled IP datagram which is
   too large to be transmitted on its output link, it is possible to
   receive a labeled packet which is too large to be transmitted on its
   output link.

   It is also possible that a received packet (labeled or unlabeled)
   which was originally small enough to be transmitted on that link
   becomes too large by virtue of having one or more additional labels
   pushed onto its label stack.  In label switching, a packet may grow
   in size if additional labels get pushed on.  Thus if one receives a
   labeled packet with a 1500-byte frame payload, and pushes on an
   additional label, one needs to forward it as frame with a 1504-byte
   payload.

   This section specifies the rules for processing labeled packets which
   are "too large".  In particular, it provides rules which ensure that
   hosts implementing RFC 1191 Path MTU Discovery, and hosts using IPv6,
   will be able to generate IP datagrams that do not need fragmentation,
   even if they get labeled as the traverse the network.

   In general, hosts which do not implement RFC 1191 Path MTU Discovery



Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 8]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


   send IP datagrams which contain no more than 576 bytes.  Since the
   MTUs in use on most data links today are 1500 bytes or more, the
   probability that such datagrams will need to get fragmented, even if
   they get labeled, is very small.

   Some hosts that do not implement RFC 1191 Path MTU Discovery will
   generate IP datagrams containing 1500 bytes, as long as the IP Source
   and Destination addresses are on the same subnet.  These datagrams
   will not pass through routers, and hence will not get fragmented.

   Unfortunately, some hosts will generate IP datagrams containing 1500
   bytes, as long the IP Source and Destination addresses do not have
   the same classful network number.  This is the one case in which
   there is any risk of fragmentation when such datagrams get labeled.
   (Even so, fragmentation is not likely unless the packet must traverse
   an ethernet of some sort between the time it first gets labeled and
   the time it gets unlabeled.)

   This document specifies procedures which allow one to configure the
   network so that large datagrams from hosts which do not implement
   Path MTU Discovery get fragmented just once, when they are first
   labeled.  These procedures make it possible (assuming suitable
   configuration) to avoid any need to fragment packets which have
   already been labeled.


3.1. Terminology

   With respect to a particular data link, we can use the following
   terms:

     - Frame Payload:

       The contents of a data link frame, excluding any data link layer
       headers or trailers (e.g., MAC headers, LLC headers, 802.1Q or
       802.1p headers, PPP header, frame check sequences, etc.).

       When a frame is carrying an an unlabeled IP datagram, the Frame
       Payload is just the IP datagram itself.  When a frame is carrying
       a labeled IP datagram, the Frame Payload consists of the label
       stack entries and the IP datagram.

     - Conventional Maximum Frame Payload Size:

       The maximum Frame Payload size allowed by data link standards.
       For example, the Conventional Maximum Frame Payload Size for
       ethernet is 1500 bytes.




Rosen, et al.                                                   [Page 9]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


     - True Maximum Frame Payload Size:

       The maximum size frame payload which can be sent and received
       properly by the interface hardware attached to the data link.

       On ethernet and 802.3 networks, it is believed that the True
       Maximum Frame Payload Size is 4-8 bytes larger than the
       Conventional Maximum Frame Payload Size (as long neither an
       802.1Q header nor an 802.1p header is present, and as long as
       neither can be added by a switch or bridge while a packet is in
       transit to its next hop).  For example, it is believed that most
       ethernet equipment could correctly send and receive packets
       carrying a payload of 1504 or perhaps even 1508 bytes, at least,
       as long as the ethernet header does not have an 802.1Q or 802.1p
       field.

       On PPP links, the True Maximum Frame Payload Size may be
       virtually unbounded.

     - Effective Maximum Frame Payload Size for Labeled Packets:

       This is either be the Conventional Maximum Frame Payload Size or
       the True Maximum Frame Payload Size, depending on the
       capabilities of the equipment on the data link and the size of
       the ethernet header being used.

     - Initially Labeled IP Datagram

       Suppose that an unlabeled IP datagram is received at a particular
       LSR, and that the the LSR pushes on a label before forwarding the
       datagram.  Such a datagram will be called an Initially Labeled IP
       Datagram at that LSR.

     - Previously Labeled IP Datagram

       An IP datagram which had already been labeled before it was
       received by a particular LSR.


3.2. Maximum Initially Labeled IP Datagram Size

   Every LSR which is capable of

      (a) receiving an unlabeled IP datagram,
      (b) adding a label stack to the datagram, and






Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 10]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


      (c) forwarding the resulting labeled packet,

   MUST support a configuration parameter known as the "Maximum IP
   Datagram Size for Labeling", which can be set to a non-negative
   value.

   If this configuration parameter is set to zero, it has no effect.

   If it is set to a positive value, it is used in the following way.
   If:
      (a) an unlabeled IP datagram is received, and
      (b) that datagram does not have the DF bit set in its IP header,
          and
      (c) that datagram needs to be labeled before being forwarded, and
      (d) the size of the datagram (before labeling) exceeds the value
          of the parameter,
   then
      (a) the datagram must be broken into fragments, each of whose size
          is no greater than the value of the parameter, and
      (b) each fragment must be labeled and then forwarded.

   If this configuration parameter is set to a value of 1488, for
   example, then any unlabeled IP datagram containing more than 1488
   bytes will be fragmented before being labeled.  Each fragment will be
   capable of being carried on a 1500-byte data link, without further
   fragmentation, even if as many as three labels are pushed onto its
   label stack.

   In other words, setting this parameter to a non-zero value allows one
   to eliminate all fragmentation of Previously Labeled IP Datagrams,
   but it may cause some unnecessary fragmentation of Initially Labeled
   IP Datagrams.

   Note that the parameter has no effect on IP Datagrams that have the
   DF bit set, which means that it has no effect on Path MTU Discovery.


3.3. When are Labeled IP Datagrams Too Big?

   A labeled IP datagram whose size exceeds the Conventional Maximum
   Frame Payload Size of the data link over which it is to be forwarded
   MAY be considered to be "too big".

   A labeled IP datagram whose size exceeds the True Maximum Frame
   Payload Size of the data link over which it is to be forwarded MUST
   be considered to be "too big".

   A labeled IP datagram which is not "too big" MUST be transmitted



Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 11]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


   without fragmentation.


3.4. Processing Labeled IPv4 Datagrams which are Too Big

   If a labeled IPv4 datagram is "too big", and the DF bit is not set in
   its IP header, then the LSR MAY discard the datagram.

   Note that discarding such datagrams is a sensible procedure only if
   the "Maximum Initially Labeled IP Datagram Size" is set to a non-zero
   value in every LSR in the network which is capable of adding a label
   stack to an unlabeled IP datagram.

   If the LSR chooses not to discard a labeled IPv4 datagram which is
   too big, or if the DF bit is set in that datagram, then it MUST
   execute the following algorithm:

      1. Strip off the label stack entries to obtain the IP datagram.

      2. Let N be the number of bytes in the label stack (i.e, 4 times
         the number of label stack entries).

      3. If the IP datagram does NOT have the "Don't Fragment" bit set
         in its IP header:

            a. convert it into fragments, each of which MUST be at least
               N bytes less than the Effective Maximum Frame Payload
               Size.

            b. Prepend each fragment with the same label header that
               would have been on the original datagram had
               fragmentation not been necessary.

            c. Forward the fragments

      4. If the IP datagram has the "Don't Fragment" bit set in its IP
         header:

            a. the datagram MUST NOT be forwarded

            b. Create an ICMP Destination Unreachable Message:

                    i. set its Code field (RFC 792) to "Fragmentation
                       Required and DF Set",







Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 12]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


                   ii. set its Next-Hop MTU field (RFC 1191) to the
                       difference between the Effective Maximum Frame
                       Payload Size and the value of N

            c. If possible, transmit the ICMP Destination Unreachable
               Message to the source of the of the discarded datagram.


3.5. Processing Labeled IPv6 Datagrams which are Too Big

   To process a labeled IPv6 datagram which is too big, an LSR MUST
   execute the following algorithm:

      1. Strip off the label stack entries to obtain the IP datagram.

      2. Let N be the number of bytes in the label stack (i.e, 4 times
         the number of label stack entries).

      3. If the IP datagram contains more than 576 bytes (not counting
         the label stack entries), then:

            a. Create an ICMP Packet Too Big Message, and set its Next-
               Hop MTU field to the difference between the Effective
               Maximum Frame Payload Size and the value of N

            b. If possible, transmit the ICMP Packet Too Big Message to
               the source of the datagram.

            c. discard the labeled IPv6 datagram.

      4. If the IP datagram is not larger than 576 octets, then

            a. Convert it into fragments, each of which MUST be at least
               N bytes less than the Effective Maximum Frame Payload
               Size.

            b. Prepend each fragment with the same label header that
               would have been on the original datagram had
               fragmentation not been necessary.

            c. Forward the fragments.

         Reassembly of the fragments will be done at the destination
         host.







Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 13]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


3.6. Implications with respect to Path MTU Discovery

   The procedures described above for handling datagrams which have the
   DF bit set, but which are "too large", have an impact on the Path MTU
   Discovery procedures of RFC 1191.  Hosts which implement these
   procedures will discover an MTU which is small enough to allow n
   labels to be pushed on the datagrams, without need for fragmentation,
   where n is the number of labels that actually get pushed on along the
   path currently in use.

   In other words, datagrams from hosts that use Path MTU Discovery will
   never need to be fragmented due to the need to put on a label header,
   or to add new labels to an existing label header.  (Also, datagrams
   from hosts that use Path MTU Discovery generally have the DF bit set,
   and so will never get fragmented anyway.)

   However, note that Path MTU Discovery will only work properly if, at
   the point where a labeled IP Datagram's fragmentation needs to occur,
   it is possible to route to the packet's source address.  If this is
   not possible, then the ICMP Destination Unreachable message cannot be
   sent to the source.


3.6.1. Tunneling through a Transit Routing Domain

   Suppose one is using MPLS to "tunnel" through a transit routing
   domain, where the external routes are not leaked into the domain's
   interior routers.  If a packet needs fragmentation at some router
   within the domain, and the packet's DF bit is set, it is necessary to
   be able to originate an ICMP message at that router and have it
   routed correctly to the source of the fragmented packet.  If the
   packet's source address is an external address, this poses a problem.

   Therefore, in order for Path MTU Discovery to work, any routing
   domain in which external routes are not leaked into the interior
   routers MUST have a default route which causes all packets carrying
   external destination addresses to be sent to a border router.  For
   example, one of the border routers may inject "default" into the IGP.


3.6.2. Tunneling Private Addresses through a Public Backbone

   In other cases where MPLS is used to tunnel through a routing domain,
   it may not be possible to route to the source address of a fragmented
   packet at all.  This would be the case, for example, if the IP
   addresses carried in the packet were private addresses, and MPLS were
   being used to tunnel those packets through a public backbone.




Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 14]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


   In such cases, the LSR at the transmitting end of the tunnel MUST be
   able to determine the MTU of the tunnel as a whole.  It SHOULD do
   this by sending packets through the tunnel to the tunnel's receiving
   endpoint, and performing Path MTU Discovery with those packets.  Then
   any time the transmitting endpoint of the tunnel needs to send a
   packet into the tunnel, and that packet has the DF bit set, and it
   exceeds the tunnel MTU, the transmitting endpoint of the tunnel MUST
   send the ICMP Destination Unreachable message to the source, with
   code "Fragmentation Required and DF Set", and the Next-Hop MTU Field
   set as described above.


4. Transporting Labeled Packets over PPP

   The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [8] provides a standard method for
   transporting multi-protocol datagrams over point-to-point links.  PPP
   defines an extensible Link Control Protocol, and proposes a family of
   Network Control Protocols for establishing and configuring different
   network-layer protocols.

   This section defines the Network Control Protocol for establishing
   and configuring label Switching over PPP.


4.1. Introduction

   PPP has three main components:

      1. A method for encapsulating multi-protocol datagrams.

      2. A Link Control Protocol (LCP) for establishing, configuring,
         and testing the data-link connection.

      3. A family of Network Control Protocols for establishing and
         configuring different network-layer protocols.

   In order to establish communications over a point-to-point link, each
   end of the PPP link must first send LCP packets to configure and test
   the data link.  After the link has been established and optional
   facilities have been negotiated as needed by the LCP, PPP must send
   "MPLS Control Protocol" packets to enable the transmission of labeled
   packets.  Once the "MPLS Control Protocol" has reached the Opened
   state, labeled packets can be sent over the link.

   The link will remain configured for communications until explicit LCP
   or MPLS Control Protocol packets close the link down, or until some
   external event occurs (an inactivity timer expires or network
   administrator intervention).



Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 15]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


4.2. A PPP Network Control Protocol for MPLS

   The MPLS Control Protocol (MPLSCP) is responsible for enabling and
   disabling the use of label switching on a PPP link.  It uses the same
   packet exchange mechanism as the Link Control Protocol (LCP).  MPLSCP
   packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the Network-Layer
   Protocol phase.  MPLSCP packets received before this phase is reached
   should be silently discarded.

   The MPLS Control Protocol is exactly the same as the Link Control
   Protocol [8] with the following exceptions:

      1. Frame Modifications

         The packet may utilize any modifications to the basic frame
         format which have been negotiated during the Link Establishment
         phase.

      2. Data Link Layer Protocol Field

         Exactly one MPLSCP packet is encapsulated in the PPP
         Information field, where the PPP Protocol field indicates type
         hex 8281 (MPLS).

      3. Code field

         Only Codes 1 through 7 (Configure-Request, Configure-Ack,
         Configure-Nak, Configure-Reject, Terminate-Request, Terminate-
         Ack and Code-Reject) are used.  Other Codes should be treated
         as unrecognized and should result in Code-Rejects.

      4. Timeouts

         MPLSCP packets may not be exchanged until PPP has reached the
         Network-Layer Protocol phase.  An implementation should be
         prepared to wait for Authentication and Link Quality
         Determination to finish before timing out waiting for a
         Configure-Ack or other response.  It is suggested that an
         implementation give up only after user intervention or a
         configurable amount of time.

      5. Configuration Option Types

         None.







Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 16]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


4.3. Sending Labeled Packets

   Before any labeled packets may be communicated, PPP must reach the
   Network-Layer Protocol phase, and the MPLS Control Protocol must
   reach the Opened state.

   Exactly one labeled packet is encapsulated in the PPP Information
   field, where the PPP Protocol field indicates either type hex 8281
   (MPLS Unicast) or type hex 8283 (MPLS Multicast).  The maximum length
   of a labeled packet transmitted over a PPP link is the same as the
   maximum length of the Information field of a PPP encapsulated packet.

   The format of the Information field itself is as defined in section
   2.

   Note that two codepoints are defined for labeled packets; one for
   multicast and one for unicast.  Once the MPLSCP has reached the
   Opened state, both label Switched multicasts and label Switched
   unicasts can be sent over the PPP link.


4.4. Label Switching Control Protocol Configuration Options

   There are no configuration options.



























Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 17]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


5. Security Considerations

   Security considerations are not discussed in this document.


6. Authors' Addresses

   Eric C. Rosen
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA, 01824
   E-mail: erosen@cisco.com

   Dan Tappan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA, 01824
   E-mail: tappan@cisco.com

   Dino Farinacci
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA, 95134
   E-mail: dino@cisco.com

   Yakov Rekhter
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA, 95134
   E-mail: yakov@cisco.com

   Guy Fedorkow
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   250 Apollo Drive
   Chelmsford, MA, 01824
   E-mail: fedorkow@cisco.com

   Tony Li
   Juniper Networks
   385 Ravendale Dr.
   Mountain View, CA, 94043
   E-mail: tli@juniper.net

   Alex Conta
   Lucent Technologies
   300 Baker Avenue
   Concord, MA, 01742
   E-mail: aconta@lucent.com



Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 18]


Internet Draft    draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-00.txt      November 1997


7. References

   [1], "A Proposed Architecture for MPLS", 7/97, draft-ietf-mpls-arch-
   00.txt, Rosen, Viswanathan, Callon

   [2] "A Framework for Multiprotocol Label Switching", 7/97, draft-
   ietf-mpls-framework-01.txt, Callon, Doolan, Feldman, Fredette,
   Swallow, Visanathawan

   [3] "Tag Switching Architecture - Overview", 7/97, draft-rekhter-
   tagswitch-arch-01.txt, Rekhter, Davie, Katz, Rosen, Swallow

   [4] "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, 9/81, Postel

   [5] "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 792, 9/81, Postel

   [6] "Path MTU Discovery", RFC 1191, 11/90, Mogul & Deering

   [7] "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, 2/97, Katz

   [8] "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", RFC 1661, 7/94, Simpson

   [9] "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
   Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1885, 12/95, Conta,
   Deering

   [10] "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", [RFC-1981] McCann, J., S.
   Deering, J. Mogul























Rosen, et al.                                                  [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/