draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03.txt 
MPLS Working Group Vishwas Manral MPLS Working Group Vishwas Manral
Internet Draft IPInfusion Inc. Internet Draft IPInfusion Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track (updates RFC5036) Updates: 5036 (if approved)
Expires: September 2011 Rajiv Papneja Intended status: Standards Track Rajiv Papneja
Isocore Expires: September 2011 Isocore
Rajiv Asati Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems Cisco
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems Cisco
March 28, 2011 May 12, 2011
Updates to LDP for IPv6 Updates to LDP for IPv6
draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-02 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at This Internet-Draft will expire on November 12, 2011.
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 September 28, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) specification defines The Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) specification defines
procedures to exchange label bindings over either IPv4, IPv6 or both procedures to exchange label bindings over either IPv4, IPv6 or both
networks. This document corrects and clarifies the LDP behavior when networks. This document corrects and clarifies the LDP behavior when
IPv6 network is used. IPv6 network is used (with or without IPv4). This document updates
RFC 5036.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3 1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Topology Scenarios........................................4 1.1. Topology Scenarios........................................3
2. Specification Language.........................................5 2. Specification Language.........................................4
3. LSP Mapping....................................................5 3. LSP Mapping....................................................5
4. LDP Identifiers................................................6 4. LDP Identifiers................................................6
5. Peer Discovery.................................................7 5. Peer Discovery.................................................6
5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism.................................7 5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism.................................6
5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism..............................8 5.2. Extended Discovery Mechanism..............................7
6. LDP Session Establishment and Maintenance......................8 6. LDP Session Establishment and Maintenance......................8
6.1. Transport connection establishment........................8 6.1. Transport connection establishment........................8
6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies............................10 6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies.............................9
6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions.................................10 6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions.................................10
7. Label Distribution............................................10 7. Label Distribution............................................10
8. IANA Considerations...........................................11 8. IANA Considerations...........................................10
9. Security Considerations.......................................11 9. Security Considerations.......................................11
10. Acknowledgments..............................................11 10. Acknowledgments..............................................11
11. References...................................................12 11. References...................................................12
11.1. Normative References....................................12 11.1. Normative References....................................12
11.2. Informative References..................................12 11.2. Informative References..................................12
Author's Addresses...............................................13 Author's Addresses...............................................13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The LDP [RFC5036] specification defines procedures and messages for The LDP [RFC5036] specification defines procedures and messages for
skipping to change at page 5, line 12 skipping to change at page 5, line 4
interface (IPv6, say), even though the IPv4 LDP session may already interface (IPv6, say), even though the IPv4 LDP session may already
be established between the LSRs over the existing interface. be established between the LSRs over the existing interface.
2. Specification Language 2. Specification Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
LDP - Label Distribution Protocol LDP - Label Distribution Protocol
LDPv6 - Label Distribution Protocol using IPv6 transport address
family
FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class FEC - Forwarding Equivalence Class
TLV - Type Length Value TLV - Type Length Value
LSR - Label Switch Router LSR - Label Switch Router
LSP - Label Switched Path LSP - Label Switched Path
3. LSP Mapping 3. LSP Mapping
skipping to change at page 6, line 14 skipping to change at page 6, line 10
Additionally, it is desirable that a packet is forwarded to an LSP Additionally, it is desirable that a packet is forwarded to an LSP
of an egress router, only if LSP's address-family matches with that of an egress router, only if LSP's address-family matches with that
of the LDP hello adjacency on the next-hop interface. of the LDP hello adjacency on the next-hop interface.
4. LDP Identifiers 4. LDP Identifiers
Section 2.2.2 of [RFC5036] specifies formulating at least one LDP Section 2.2.2 of [RFC5036] specifies formulating at least one LDP
Identifier, however, it doesn't provide any consideration in case of Identifier, however, it doesn't provide any consideration in case of
IPv6 (with or without dual-stacking). Additionally, section 2.5.2 of IPv6 (with or without dual-stacking). Additionally, section 2.5.2 of
[RFC5036] prohibits using the same label space for IPv4 and IPv6 [RFC5036] implicitly prohibits using the same label space for both
transports as well as FEC-label bindings. IPv4 and IPv6 FEC-label bindings.
The first four octets of the LDP identifier, the 32-bit LSR Id, The first four octets of the LDP identifier, the 32-bit LSR Id,
identify the LSR and is a globally unique value. This is regardless identify the LSR and is a globally unique value. This is regardless
of the address family used for the LDP session. In other words, this of the address family used for the LDP session. In other words, this
document preserves the usage of 32-bit LSR Id on an IPv6 only LSR. document preserves the usage of 32-bit LSR Id on an IPv6 only LSR.
Please note that 32-bit LSR Id value would not map to any IPv4- 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 address in an IPv6 only LSR (i.e., single stack), nor would there
be an expectation of it being DNS-resolvable. In IPv4 deployments, be an expectation of it being DNS-resolvable. In IPv4 deployments,
the LSR Id is typically derived from an IPv4 address, generally the LSR Id is typically derived from an IPv4 address, generally
skipping to change at page 7, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
5. Peer Discovery 5. Peer Discovery
5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism 5.1. Basic Discovery Mechanism
Section 2.4.1 of [RFC5036] defines the Basic Discovery mechanism for Section 2.4.1 of [RFC5036] defines the Basic Discovery mechanism for
directly connected LSRs. Following this mechanism, LSRs periodically directly connected LSRs. Following this mechanism, LSRs periodically
sends LDP Link Hellos destined to "all routers on this subnet" group sends LDP Link Hellos destined to "all routers on this subnet" group
multicast IP address. multicast IP address.
Interesting enough, per [IANA-IPv6] [RFC4291], IPv6 has three "all Interesting enough, per the IPv6 addressing architecture [RFC4291],
routers on this subnet" multicast addresses: IPv6 has three "all routers on this subnet" multicast addresses:
FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Interface-local scope FF01:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Interface-local scope
FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Link-local scope FF02:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Link-local scope
FF05:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Site-local scope FF05:0:0:0:0:0:0:2 = Site-local scope
[RFC5036] does not specify which particular IPv6 'all routers on [RFC5036] does not specify which particular IPv6 'all routers on
this subnet' group multicast IP address should be used by LDP Link this subnet' group multicast IP address should be used by LDP Link
Hellos. Hellos.
skipping to change at page 9, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 45
Hello message. An LSR should include only the transport address Hello message. An LSR should include only the transport address
whose address family is the same as that of the IP packet whose address family is the same as that of the IP packet
carrying Hello. carrying Hello.
- An LSR should accept the Hello message that contains both IPv4 - An LSR should accept the Hello message that contains both IPv4
and IPv6 transport address optional objects, but use only the and IPv6 transport address optional objects, but use only the
transport address whose address family is the same as that of transport address whose address family is the same as that of
the IP packet carrying Hello. the IP packet carrying Hello.
- An LSR must send separate Hellos (each containing either IPv4 - An LSR must send separate Hellos (each containing either IPv4
or IPv6 transport address optional object) for each IP or IPv6 transport address optional object) for each IP address-
transport, if LDP was enabled for both IP transports. family, if LDP was enabled for both IP address-families.
- An LSR should not create (or honor the request for creating) a - 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 TCP connection for a new LDP session with a remote LSR, if they
already have an LDP session (for the same LDP Identifier) already have an LDP session (for the same LDP Identifier)
established using whatever IP version transport. This means established over whatever IP version transport. This means that
that only one transport connection should be established, even only one transport connection should be established, even if
if there are two Hello adjacencies (one for IPv4 and another there are two Hello adjacencies (one for IPv4 and another for
for IPv6). This is independent of whether the Hello Adjacencies IPv6). This is independent of whether the Hello Adjacencies are
are created over a single interface (scenarios 1 in section created over a single interface (scenarios 1 in section 1.1) or
1.1) or multiple interfaces (scenario 2 in section 1.1). multiple interfaces (scenario 2 in section 1.1) between two
LSRs.
- An LSR should prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new - 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 LDP session with a remote LSR, if it has both IPv4 and IPv6
hello adjacencies for the same LDP Identifier (over a dual- hello adjacencies for the same LDP Identifier (over a dual-
stack interface, or two or more single-stack IPv4 and IPv6 stack interface, or two or more single-stack IPv4 and IPv6
interfaces). This applies to the section 2.5.2 of RFC5036. interfaces). This applies to the section 2.5.2 of RFC5036.
- An LSR should prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new - An LSR should prefer the LDP/TCP connection over IPv6 for a new
LDP session with a remote LSR, if they attempted two TCP LDP session with a remote LSR, if they attempted two TCP
connections using IPv4 and IPv6 transports simultaneously. connections using IPv4 and IPv6 transport addresses
simultaneously.
This document allows an implementation to provide a configuration to This document allows an implementation to provide a configuration to
override the above stated preference from IPv6 to IPv4 on a per-peer override the above stated preference from IPv6 to IPv4 on a per-peer
basis. Suffice to say that, such preference must be set on both basis. Suffice to say that, such preference must be set on both
LSRs. LSRs.
This document also specifies that the LDP/TCP transport connection This document also specifies that the LDP/TCP transport connection
over IPv6 must follow the GTSM procedures (Section 3 of [RFC5082]) over IPv6 must follow the GTSM procedures (Section 3 of [RFC5082])
by default, if the LDP/TCP transport connection is being established by default, if the LDP/TCP transport connection is being established
between the adjacent LSRs (using Basic Discovery, as described in between the adjacent LSRs (using Basic Discovery, as described in
skipping to change at page 10, line 15 skipping to change at page 10, line 7
6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies 6.2. Maintaining Hello Adjacencies
As outlined in section 2.5.5 of RFC5036, this draft suggests that if As outlined in section 2.5.5 of RFC5036, this draft suggests that if
an LSR has a dual-stack interface, which is enabled with both IPv4 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 and IPv6 LDP, then the LSR must periodically send both IPv4 and IPv6
LDP Link Hellos and must separately maintain the Hello adjacency for LDP Link Hellos and must separately maintain the Hello adjacency for
IPv4 and IPv6 on that interface. IPv4 and IPv6 on that interface.
This ensures successful labeled IPv4 and labeled IPv6 traffic This ensures successful labeled IPv4 and labeled IPv6 traffic
forwarding on a dual-stacked interface, as well as successful LDP forwarding on a dual-stacked interface, as well as successful LDP
peerings using the appropriate transport on a multi-access peering using the appropriate transport on a multi-access
interface (even if there are IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-stack interface (even if there are IPv4-only, IPv6-only and dual-stack
LSRs connected to that multi-access interface). LSRs connected to that multi-access interface).
6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions 6.3. Maintaining LDP Sessions
Two LSRs maintain a single LDP session between them, as described in Two LSRs maintain a single LDP session between them, as described in
section 6.1, whether they are connected via a dual-stack LDP enabled section 6.1, whether they are connected via a dual-stack LDP enabled
interface or via two single-stack LDP enabled interfaces. This is interface or via two single-stack LDP enabled interfaces. This is
also true when a single-stack interface is converted to a dual-stack also true when a single-stack interface is converted to a dual-stack
interface, or when another interface is added between two LSRs. interface, or when another interface is added between two LSRs.
skipping to change at page 11, line 26 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
for this document as well, this document reduces the chances of off- for this document as well, this document reduces the chances of off-
link attacks when using IPv6 transport connection by including the link attacks when using IPv6 transport connection by including the
use of GTSM procedures [RFC5082]. use of GTSM procedures [RFC5082].
Moreover, this document allows the use of IPsec [RFC4301] for IPv6 Moreover, this document allows the use of IPsec [RFC4301] for IPv6
protection, hence, LDP can benefit from the additional security as protection, hence, LDP can benefit from the additional security as
specified in [RFC4835] as well as [RFC5920]. specified in [RFC4835] as well as [RFC5920].
10. Acknowledgments 10. Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the authors of [RFC5036], since a lot of the text in We acknowledge the authors of [RFC5036], since the text in this
this document is borrowed from [RFC5036]. document is borrowed from [RFC5036].
Thanks to Bob Thomas for providing critical feedback to improve this Thanks to Bob Thomas for providing critical feedback to improve this
document early on. Thanks to Kamran Raza, Eric Rosen, Lizhong Jin, document early on. Thanks to Kamran Raza, Eric Rosen, Lizhong Jin,
Bin Mo, Mach Chen, and Kishore Tiruveedhula for reviewing this Bin Mo, Mach Chen, and Kishore Tiruveedhula for reviewing this
document. The authors also aknowledge the help of Manoj Dutta and document. The authors also acknowledge the help of Manoj Dutta and
Vividh Siddha. Vividh Siddha.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 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 [RFC5036] Andersson, L., Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "LDP
Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007. Specification", RFC 5036, October 2007.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
[RFC5082] Pignataro, C., Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., and [RFC5082] Pignataro, C., Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., and
Savola, P., "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism Savola, P., "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 3513, April 2003. (GTSM)", RFC 5082, October 2007.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture and Internet [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture and Internet
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 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.
[RFC5918] Asati, R. Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "Label Distribution [RFC5918] Asati, R. Minei, I., and Thomas, B., "Label Distribution
Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class Protocol (LDP) 'Typed Wildcard' Forward Equivalence Class
(FEC)", RFC 5918, April 2010. (FEC)", RFC 5918, April 2010.
[RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS [RFC5920] Fang, L., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010. Networks", RFC 5920, July 2010.
Author's Addresses Author's Addresses
Vishwas Manral Vishwas Manral
skipping to change at page 13, line 20 skipping to change at page 13, line 20
Sunnyvale, CA, 94089 Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
Email: vishwas@ipinfusion.com Email: vishwas@ipinfusion.com
Rajiv Papneja Rajiv Papneja
ISOCORE ISOCORE
12359 Sunrise Valley Dr, STE 100 12359 Sunrise Valley Dr, STE 100
Reston, VA 20190 Reston, VA 20190
Email: rpapneja@isocore.com Email: rpapneja@isocore.com
Rajiv Asati Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems, Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987 7025 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
Email: rajiva@cisco.com Email: rajiva@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Cisco Systems, Inc.
7025 Kit Creek Rd, RTP, NC, 27709-4987 7200 Kit Creek Road
Email: rajiva@cisco.com Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-4987
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 54 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/