[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 7552

MPLS Working Group                                          Rajiv Asati
Internet Draft                                                    Cisco
Updates: 5036 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track                         Vishwas Manral
Expires: August 25, 2013                          Hewlett-Packard, Inc.

                                                          Rajiv Papneja
                                                                 Huawei

                                                       Carlos Pignataro
                                                                  Cisco


                                                      February 25, 2013


                          Updates to LDP for IPv6
                        draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-08


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 http://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 August 25, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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
   (http://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



Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


   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.



Abstract

   The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) specification defines
   procedures to exchange label bindings over either IPv4, or IPv6 or
   both networks. This document corrects and clarifies the LDP behavior
   when IPv6 network is used (with or without IPv4). This document
   updates RFC 5036.



Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. Scope.....................................................4
         1.1.1. Topology Scenarios...................................4
         1.1.2. LDP TTL Security.....................................5
   2. Specification Language.........................................5
   3. LSP Mapping....................................................6
   4. LDP Identifiers................................................6
   5. Peer Discovery.................................................7
      5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism.................................7
      5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism..............................8
   6. LDP Session Establishment and Maintenance......................8
      6.1. Transport connection establishment........................9
      6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies............................10
      6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions.................................11
   7. Label Distribution............................................11
   8. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses........................12
   9. LDP TTL Security..............................................13
   10. IANA Considerations..........................................13
   11. Security Considerations......................................13
   12. Acknowledgments..............................................14
   13. Additional Contributors......................................14
   14. References...................................................15
      14.1. Normative References....................................15
      14.2. Informative References..................................15
   Author's Addresses...............................................16





Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013




1. Introduction

   The LDP [RFC5036] specification defines procedures and messages for
   exchanging FEC-label bindings over either IPv4 or IPv6 or both (e.g.
   dual-stack) networks.

   However, RFC5036 specification has the following deficiencies in
   regards to IPv6 usage:

   1) LSP Mapping: No rule defined for mapping a particular packet to a
      particular LSP that has an Address Prefix FEC element containing
      IPv6 address of the egress router

   2) LDP Identifier: No details specific to IPv6 usage

   3) LDP Discovery: No details for using a particular IPv6 destination
      (multicast) address or the source address (with or without IPv4
      co-existence)

   4) LDP Session establishment: No rule for handling both IPv4 and
      IPv6 transport address optional objects in a Hello message, and
      subsequently two IPv4 and IPv6 transport connections

   5) LDP Label Distribution: No rule for advertising IPv4 or/and IPv6
      FEC-label bindings over an LDP session, and denying the co-
      existence of IPv4 and IPv6 FEC Elements in the same FEC TLV

   6) Next Hop Address & LDP Identifier: No rule for accommodating the
      usage of duplicate link-local IPv6 addresses

   7) LDP TTL Security: No rule for built-in Generalized TTL Security
      Mechanism (GTSM) in LDP



   This document addresses the above deficiencies by specifying the
   desired behavior/rules/details for using LDP in IPv6 enabled
   networks (IPv6-only or Dual-stack networks).

   Note that this document updates RFC5036.







Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


1.1. Scope

1.1.1. Topology Scenarios

   The following scenarios in which the LSRs may be inter-connected via
   one or more dual-stack interfaces (figure 1), or one or more single-
   stack interfaces (figure 2 and figure 3) are addressed by this
   document:



                 R1------------------R2
                       IPv4+IPv6

            Figure 1 LSRs connected via a Dual-stack Interface



                       IPv4
                 R1=================R2
                       IPv6

          Figure 2 LSRs connected via two single-stack Interfaces





                 R1------------------R2---------------R3
                       IPv4                 IPv6

           Figure 3 LSRs connected via a single-stack Interface



   Note that the topology scenario illustrated in figure 1 also covers
   the case of a single-stack interface (IPv4, say) being converted to
   a dual-stacked interface by enabling IPv6 routing as well as IPv6
   LDP, even though the IPv4 LDP session may already be established
   between the LSRs.

   Note that the topology scenario illustrated in figure 2 also covers
   the case of two routers getting connected via an additional single-
   stack interface (IPv6 routing and IPv6 LDP), even though the IPv4
   LDP session may already be established between the LSRs over the
   existing interface(s).



Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


1.1.2. LDP TTL Security

   LDP TTL Security mechanism specified by this document applies only
   to single-hop LDP peering sessions, but not to multi-hop LDP peering
   sessions, in line with Section 5.5 of [RFC5082] that describes
   Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM).

   As a consequence, any LDP feature that relies on multi-hop LDP
   peering session would not work with GTSM and will warrant
   (statically or dynamically) disabling GTSM. Please see section 8.



2. Specification Language

   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].

   Abbreviations:

   LDP      - Label Distribution Protocol

   LDPv4    - LDP for enabling IPv4 MPLS forwarding

   LDPv6    - LDP for enabling IPv6 MPLS forwarding

   LDPoIPv4 - LDP over IPv4 transport session

   LDPoIPv6 - LDP over IPv6 transport session

   FEC      - Forwarding Equivalence Class

   TLV      - Type Length Value

   LSR      - Label Switch Router

   LSP      - Label Switched Path

   LSPv4    - IPv4-signaled Label Switched Path [RFC4798]

   LSPv6    - IPv6-signaled Label Switched Path [RFC4798]







Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013




3. LSP Mapping

   Section 2.1 of [RFC5036] specifies the procedure for mapping a
   particular packet to a particular LSP using three rules. Quoting the
   3rd rule from RFC5036:

     "If it is known that a packet must traverse a particular egress
     router, and there is an LSP that has an Address Prefix FEC element
     that is a /32 address of that router, then the packet is mapped to
     that LSP."

   Suffice to say, this rule is correct for IPv4, but not for IPv6,
   since an IPv6 router may not have any /32 address.

   This document proposes to modify this rule by also including a /128
   address (for IPv6). In fact, it should be reasonable to just say
   IPv4 or IPv6 address instead of /32 or /128 addresses as shown below
   in the updated rule:

     "If it is known that a packet must traverse a particular egress
     router, and there is an LSP that has an Address Prefix FEC element
     that is an IPv4 or IPv6 address of that router, then the packet is
     mapped to that LSP."



4. LDP Identifiers

   Section 2.2.2 of [RFC5036] specifies formulating at least one LDP
   Identifier, however, it doesn't provide any consideration in case of
   IPv6 (with or without dual-stacking).

   The first four octets of the LDP identifier, the 32-bit LSR Id (e.g.
   (i.e. LDP Router Id), identify the LSR and is a globally unique
   value within the MPLS network. This is regardless of the address
   family used for the LDP session. Hence, this document preserves the
   usage of 32-bit (unsigned non-zero integer) LSR Id on an IPv6 only
   LSR (note that BGP has also mandated using 32-bit BGP Router ID on
   an IPv6 only Router [RFC6286]).

     Please note that 32-bit LSR Id value would not map to any IPv4-
     address in an IPv6 only LSR (i.e., single stack), nor would there
     be an expectation of it being DNS-resolvable. In IPv4 deployments,
     the LSR Id is typically derived from an IPv4 address, generally
     assigned to a loopback interface. In IPv6 only deployments, this


Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


     32-bit LSR Id must be derived by some other means that guarantees
     global uniqueness within the MPLS network, similar to that of BGP
     Identifier [RFC6286].

   This document qualifies the first sentence of last paragraph of
   Section 2.5.2 of [RFC5036] to be per address family and therefore
   updates that sentence to the following: "For a given address family
   over which a Hello is sent, and a given label space, an LSR MUST
   advertise the same transport address." This rightly enables the per-
   platform label space to be shared between IPv4 and IPv6.

   In summary, this document not only allows the usage of a common LDP
   identifier i.e. same LSR-Id (aka LDP Router-Id), but also the common
   Label space id for both IPv4 and IPv6 on a dual-stack LSR.

   This document reserves 0.0.0.0 as the LSR-Id, and prohibits its
   usage.



5. Peer Discovery

5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism

   Section 2.4.1 of [RFC5036] defines the Basic Discovery mechanism for
   directly connected LSRs. Following this mechanism, LSRs periodically
   sends LDP Link Hellos destined to "all routers on this subnet" group
   multicast IP address.

   Interesting enough, per the IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC4291],
   IPv6 has three "all routers on this subnet" multicast addresses:

         FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:2   = Interface-local scope

         FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2   = Link-local scope

         FF05:0:0:0:0:0:0:2   = Site-local scope

   [RFC5036] does not specify which particular IPv6 'all routers on
   this subnet' group multicast IP address should be used by LDP Link
   Hellos.

   This document specifies the usage of link-local scope e.g.
   FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 as the destination multicast IP address in IPv6
   LDP Link Hellos. An LDP Hello packet received on any of the other
   destination addresses must be dropped. Additionally, the link-local



Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


   IPv6 address MUST be used as the source IP address in IPv6 LDP Link
   Hellos.

   Also, the LDP Link Hello packets must have their IPv6 Hop Limit set
   to 255, and be checked for the same upon receipt before any further
   processing, as specified in Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
   (GTSM)[RFC5082]. The built-in inclusion of GTSM automatically
   protects IPv6 LDP from off-link attacks.

   More importantly, if an interface is a dual-stack LDP interface
   (e.g. enabled with both IPv4 and IPv6 LDP), then the LSR must
   periodically send both IPv4 and IPv6 LDP Link Hellos (using the same
   LDP Identifier per section 4) and must separately maintain the Hello
   adjacency for IPv4 and IPv6 on that interface.

   In summary, the IPv4 and IPv6 LDP Link Hellos must carry the same
   LDP identifier (assuming per-platform label space usage).



5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism

   Suffice to say, the extended discovery mechanism (defined in section
   2.4.2 of [RFC5036]) doesn't require any additional IPv6 specific
   consideration, since the targeted LDP Hellos are sent to a pre-
   configured (unicast) destination IPv6 address.

   The link-local IP addresses MUST NOT be used as the source or
   destination IPv6 addresses in extended discovery.



6. LDP Session Establishment and Maintenance

   Section 2.5.1 of [RFC5036] defines a two-step process for LDP
   session establishment, once the peer discovery has completed (LDP
   Hellos have been exchanged):

     1. Transport connection establishment
     2. Session initialization

   The forthcoming sub-sections discuss the LDP consideration for IPv6
   and/or dual-stacking in the context of session establishment and
   maintenance.





Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


6.1. Transport connection establishment

   Section 2.5.2 of [RFC5036] specifies the use of an optional
   transport address object (TLV) in LDP Link Hello message to convey
   the transport (IP) address, however, it does not specify the
   behavior of LDP if both IPv4 and IPv6 transport address objects
   (TLV) are sent in a Hello message or separate Hello messages. More
   importantly, it does not specify whether both IPv4 and IPv6
   transport connections should be allowed, if there were Hello
   adjacencies for both IPv4 and IPv6 whether over a single interface
   or multiple interfaces.

   This document specifies that:

     1. An LSR MUST NOT send a Hello containing both IPv4 and IPv6
        transport address optional objects. In other words, there MUST
        be at most one optional Transport Address object in a Hello
        message. An LSR MUST include only the transport address whose
        address family is the same as that of the IP packet carrying
        Hello.

     2. An LSR SHOULD accept the Hello message that contains both IPv4
        and IPv6 transport address optional objects, but MUST use only
        the transport address whose address family is the same as that
        of the IP packet carrying Hello. An LSR SHOULD accept only the
        first transport object for a given Address family in the
        received Hello message, and ignore the rest, if the LSR
        receives more than one transport object.

     3. An LSR MUST send separate Hellos (each containing either IPv4
        or IPv6 transport address optional object) for each IP address
        family, if LDP was enabled for both IP address-families.

     4. An LSR MUST use a global unicast IPv6 address in IPv6 transport
        address optional object of outgoing targeted hellos, and check
        for the same in incoming targeted hellos (i.e. MUST discard the
        hello, if it failed the check).

     5. An LSR MUST prefer using global unicast IPv6 address for an LDP
        session with a remote LSR, if it had to choose between global
        unicast IPv6 address and unique-local or link-local IPv6
        address (pertaining to the same LDP Identifier) for the
        transport connection.

     6. An LSR SHOULD NOT create (or honor the request for creating) a
        TCP connection for a new LDP session with a remote LSR, if they



Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


        already have an LDP session (for the same LDP Identifier)
        established over whatever IP version transport.

        This means that only one transport connection is established,
        even if there are two Hello adjacencies (one for IPv4 and
        another for IPv6). This is independent of whether the Hello
        Adjacencies are created over a single interface (scenario 1 in
        section 1.1) or multiple interfaces (scenario 2 in section 1.1)
        between two LSRs.

     7. An LSR SHOULD prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new
        LDP session with a remote LSR, if it has both IPv4 and IPv6
        hello adjacencies for the same LDP Identifier (over a dual-
        stack interface, or two or more single-stack IPv4 and IPv6
        interfaces). This applies to the section 2.5.2 of RFC5036.

        Each LSR, assuming an active role for whichever address
        family(s), should enforce this LDP/TCP connection over IPv6
        preference for a time-period (default value is 15 seconds),
        after which LDP/TCP connection over IPv4 should be attempted.
        This enforcement is independent of whether the LSR is assuming
        the active role for IPv4 This timer is started upon receiving
        the first hello from the neighbor.


     8. An LSR SHOULD prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new
        LDP session with a remote LSR, if they attempted two TCP
        connections using IPv4 and IPv6 transport addresses
        simultaneously.


   An implementation may provide an option to favor one AFI (IPv4, say)
   over another AFI (IPv6, say) for the TCP transport connection, so as
   to use the favored IP version for the LDP session, and force
   deterministic active/passive roles.



6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies

   As outlined in section 2.5.5 of RFC5036, this draft describes that
   if an LSR has a dual-stack interface, which is enabled with both
   IPv4 and IPv6 LDP, then the LSR must periodically send both IPv4 and
   IPv6 LDP Link Hellos and must separately maintain the Hello
   adjacency for IPv4 and IPv6 on that interface.




Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


     This ensures successful labeled IPv4 and labeled IPv6 traffic
     forwarding on a dual-stacked interface, as well as successful LDP
     peering using the appropriate transport on a multi-access
     interface (even if there are IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-stack
     LSRs connected to that multi-access interface).



6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions

   Two LSRs maintain a single LDP session between them (i.e. not tear
   down an existing session), as described in section 6.1, whether

   - they are connected via a dual-stack LDP enabled interface or via
     two single-stack LDP enabled interfaces;
   - a single-stack interface is converted to a dual-stack interface
     (e.g. figure 1) on either LSR;
   - an additional single-stack or dual-stack interface is added or
     removed between two LSRs (e.g. figure 2).

   Needless to say that the procedures defined in section 6.1 should
   result in preferring LDPoIPv6 session only after the loss of an
   existing LDP session (because of link failure, node failure, reboot
   etc.).

   If the last hello adjacency for a given address family goes down
   (e.g. due to dual-stack interfaces being converted into a single-
   stack interfaces on one LSR etc.), and that address family is the
   same as the one used in the transport connection, then the transport
   connection (LDP session) SHOULD be reset. Otherwise, the LDP session
   should stay intact.

   If the LDP session is torn down for whatever reason (LDP disabled
   for the corresponding transport, hello adjacency expiry etc.), then
   the LSRs should initiate establishing a new LDP session as per the
   procedures described in section 6.1 of this document along with
   RFC5036.



7. Label Distribution

   An LSR MUST NOT allocate and advertise FEC-Label bindings for link-
   local IPv6 address, and ignore such bindings, if ever received. An
   LSR MUST treat the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address, defined in section
   2.5.5.2 of [RFC4291], the same as that of a global IPv6 address and
   not mix it with the 'corresponding' IPv4 address.


Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


   Additionally, to ensure backward compatibility (and interoperability
   with IPv4-only LDP implementations) in light of section 3.4.1.1 of
   RFC5036, as rationalized in the Appendix A.1, this document
   specifies that -

     1. An LSR MUST NOT send a label mapping message with a FEC TLV
        containing FEC Elements of different address family. In other
        words, a FEC TLV in the label mapping message MUST contain the
        FEC Elements belonging to the same address family.
     2. An LSR MUST NOT send an Address message (or Address Withdraw
        message) with an Address List TLV containing IP addresses of
        different address family. In other words, an Address List TLV
        in the Address (or Address Withdraw) message MUST contain the
        addresses belonging to the same address family.

   An LSR MAY constrain the advertisement of FEC-label bindings for a
   particular address family by negotiating the IP Capability for a
   given AFI, as specified in [IPPWCap] document.



8. LDP Identifiers and Next Hop Addresses

   RFC5036 section 2.7 specifies the logic for mapping the IP routing
   next-hop (of a given FEC) to an LDP peer so as to find the correct
   label entry for that FEC. The logic involves using the IP routing
   next-hop address as an index into the (peer Address) database (which
   is populated by the Address message containing mapping between each
   peer's local addresses and its LDP Identifier) to determine the LDP
   peer.

   However, this logic is insufficient to deal with duplicate IPv6
   (link-local) next-hop addresses used by two or more peers. The
   reason is that all interior IPv6 routing protocols (can) use link-
   local IPv6 addresses as the IP routing next-hops, and 'IPv6
   Addressing Architecture [RFC4291]' allows a link-local IPv6 address
   to be used on more than one links.

   Hence, this logic is extended by this specification to involve not
   only the IP routing next-hop address, but also the IP routing next-
   hop interface to uniquely determine the LDP peer(s). The next-hop
   address-based LDP peer mapping is to be done through LDP peer
   address database (populated by Address messages received from the
   LDP peers), whereas next-hop interface-based LDP peer mapping is to
   be done through LDP hello adjacency/interface database (populated by
   hello messages from the LDP peers).



Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


   This extension solves the problem of two or more peers using the
   same link-local IPv6 address (in other words, duplicate addresses)
   as the IP routing next-hops.

   Lastly, for better scale and optimization, an LSR may advertise only
   the link-local IPv6 addresses in the Address message, assuming that
   the peer uses only the link-local IPv6 addresses as static and/or
   dynamic IP routing next-hops.



9. LDP TTL Security

   This document recommends enabling Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
   (GTSM) for LDP, as specified in [RFC6720], for the LDP/TCP transport
   connection over IPv6 (i.e. LDPoIPv6).

   [RFC6720] allows for the implementation to statically
   (configuration) and/or dynamically override the default behavior
   (enable/disable GTSM) on a per-peer basis. Suffice to say that such
   an option could be set on either LSR (since GTSM negotiation would
   ultimately disable GTSM between LSR and its peer(s)).

   The GTSM inclusion is intended to automatically protect IPv6 LDP
   peering session from off-link attacks.



10. IANA Considerations

   None.



11. Security Considerations

   The extensions defined in this document only clarify the behavior of
   LDP, they do not define any new protocol procedures. Hence, this
   document does not add any new security issues to LDP.

   While the security issues relevant for the [RFC5036] are relevant
   for this document as well, this document reduces the chances of off-
   link attacks when using IPv6 transport connection by including the
   use of GTSM procedures [RFC5082].





Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


   Moreover, this document allows the use of IPsec [RFC4301] for IPv6
   protection, hence, LDP can benefit from the additional security as
   specified in [RFC4835] as well as [RFC5920].



12. Acknowledgments

   We acknowledge the authors of [RFC5036], since the text in this
   document is borrowed from [RFC5036].

   Thanks to Bob Thomas for providing critical feedback to improve this
   document early on. Thanks to Eric Rosen, Lizhong Jin, Bin Mo, Mach
   Chen, Shane Amante, Pranjal Dutta, Mustapha Aissaoui, Mark Tinka,
   Tom Petch and Kishore Tiruveedhula for reviewing this document. The
   authors also acknowledge the help of Manoj Dutta and Vividh Siddha.

   Also, thanks to Andre Pelletier (who brought up the issue about
   active/passive determination, and helped us craft the appropriate
   solutions).

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.



13. Additional Contributors

   The following individuals contributed to this document:

   Kamran Raza
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2000 Innovation Drive
   Kanata, ON K2K-3E8, Canada
   Email: skraza@cisco.com


   Nagendra Kumar
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   SEZ Unit, Cessna Business Park,
   Bangalore, KT, India
   Email: naikumar@cisco.com








Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


14. References

14.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
             (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "LDP
             Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.

   [RFC5082] Pignataro, C., Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., and
             Savola, P., "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
             (GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.





14.2. Informative References

   [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture and Internet
             Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
             Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
             Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007.

   [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
             Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.

   [RFC4798] De Clercq, et al., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS
             Using IPv6 Provider Edge Routers (6PE)", RFC 4798,
             February 2007.

   [IPPWCap] Raza, K., "LDP IP and PW Capability", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-
             ip-pw-capability, June 2011.










Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


15. Appendix

15.1. A.1

   It is naive to assume that RFC5036 compliant implementations have
   supported IPv6 address family (IPv6 FEC processing, in particular)
   in label advertisement all along. And if that assumption turned out
   to be not true, then section 3.4.1.1 of RFC5036 would cause LSRs to
   abort processing the entire label mapping message and generate an
   error.

   This would result in LDPv6 to be somewhat undeployable in existing
   production networks.

   The change proposed in section 7 of this document provides a good
   safety net and makes LDPv6 incrementally deployable without making
   any such assumption on the routers' support for IPv6 FEC processing
   in current production networks.





Author's Addresses

   Vishwas Manral
   Hewlet-Packard, Inc.
   19111 Pruneridge Ave., Cupertino, CA, 95014
   Phone: 408-447-1497
   Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com


   Rajiv Papneja
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   Phone: +1 571 926 8593
   EMail: rajiv.papneja@huawei.com


   Rajiv Asati
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7025 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
   Email: rajiva@cisco.com




Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft         draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6       February 25, 2013


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   7200 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
   Email: cpignata@cisco.com












































Asati, et. al          Expires August 25, 2013                [Page 17]


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