Hi Dhruv,
thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. I've added more notes below tagged GIM2>>. Attached, please find the updated working version of the draft.
Regards,
Greg
On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 7:41 PM Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
HI Greg,Thanks for taking my comments into consideration.
## Major
- It would be incorrect to put RFC 7056 (which is being made historic) in the
"updates:" list at the top of the page. Note that, one needs to follow the
"status-change" document process to mark the RFC as historic which should be
triggered by the AD. The job of this I-D is to articulate the reasons why the
RFC7506 should be made historic. Update section 1 and section 3 accordingly.
Section 3 could list or refer to existing sections on why RFC 7506 should be
historic.GIM>> Thank you for pointing this out. Updated the header accordingly.Dhruv: I think this text in (1) abstract - "It reclassifies RFC 7506 as Historic..." and this text in (2) introduction "...and reclassifies RFC 7506 [RFC7506] as Historic." and section 3 (3) "This document reclassifies RFC 7506 [RFC7506] as Historic." are incorrect.It should stay instead that "this document explains why RFC 7560 has been reclassified as Historic" in all places. I would also suggest to update section 3 accordingly
GIM2>> Thank you for explaining the process to me. As I understand it, reclassifying RFC 7506 will take separate efforts and time. Hence my question, "Would it be more acceptable to state, "This document explains why RFC 7506 should be reclassified as Historic"?
This IESG statement has some useful information - https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/designating-rfcs-historicThere now exists a new type of document, "status-change" documents, to fill this gap. These documents are kept in the datatracker, are not Internet drafts, and are not published as RFCs, but they are archival documents that are linked to the RFCs whose status is changedAn example -RFC that is marked as Historic - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3540/via this status change - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-ecn-signaling-with-nonces-to-historic/which links to the explanation in draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-experimentation / https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8311/Hope this helps!
- RFC 8029 includes text outside of sections 2.1 and 2.2 that mentions router
alert. For instance, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8029#section-4.5
tells how to handle it with "MUST" when we now are asking implementation to
ignore it - ````
If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an
IPv4 UDP packet with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain
the Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or 69
[RFC7506] for IPv6. If the reply is sent over an LSP, the topmost
label MUST in this case be the Router Alert label (1) (see
[RFC3032]).GIM>> Thank you for catching another reference to the Reply mode 3. Appended the following text to Section 4:NEW TEXTResulting from the removal of the Reply mode 3 "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert" (see Section 2.2), thisspecification updates Section 4.5 of [RFC8029] by removing thefollowing text:If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an IPv4 UDPpacket with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain the RouterAlert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or 69 [RFC7506] forIPv6. If the reply is sent over an LSP, the topmost label MUST inthis case be the Router Alert label (1) (see [RFC3032]).Dhruv: Looks good!````
- If you do update the text, note that there is an erratum
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7639. Please do a check of all other
instances of "alert" as well in RFC 8029.GIM>> That was my errata. What would be the right way to handle it?Dhruv: Since you are removing the text with this update, I guess nothing!I have my doubts about one more instance -The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value 69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
GIM2>> Thank you pointing this text to me. Would the following text address your concern:
NEW TEXT:
Furthermore, this specidication updates Section 4.3 of [RFC8029] as
follows:
OLD:
The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
NEW:
The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113]for IPv4 or value 69
[RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
END
Hope you did a check on other instances of "alert" in RFC 8029.--In one edit in Section 4, where you list the OLD text from RFC 8029, do not add a reference to RFC 1122 in OLD text as this should be as listed in RFC 8029. It is good that you added reference in the NEW text!Thanks!Dhruv
MPLS WG K. Kompella
Internet-Draft R. Bonica
Updates: 8029 (if approved) Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track G. Mirsky, Ed.
Expires: 14 August 2024 Ericsson
11 February 2024
Deprecating the Use of Router Alert in LSP Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-lspping-norao-07
Abstract
The MPLS echo request and MPLS echo response messages, defined in RFC
8029 "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane
Failures" (usually referred to as LSP ping messages), are
encapsulated in IP headers that include a Router Alert Option (RAO).
The rationale for using an RAO as the exception mechanism is
questionable. Furthermore, RFC 6398 identifies security
vulnerabilities associated with the RAO in non-controlled
environments, e.g., the case of using the MPLS echo request/reply as
inter-area Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), and
recommends against its use outside of controlled environments.
Therefore, this document retires the RAO for MPLS OAM and updates RFC
8029 to remove the RAO from LSP ping message encapsulations.
Furthermore, this document explains why RFC 7506 has been
reclassified as Historic.
This document also recommends the use of an IPv6 loopback address
(::1/128) and not the use of an IPv4 loopback address mapped to IPv6.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 August 2024.
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Router Alert for LSP Ping (RFC 8029) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. MPLS Echo Reply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Reclassification of RFC 7506 as Historic . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Update to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
RFC 8029 - "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane
Failures" (usually referred to as LSP Ping) [RFC8029] detects data-
plane failures in MPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs). It can operate
in "ping mode" or "traceroute mode". When operating in ping mode, it
checks LSP connectivity. When operating in traceroute mode, it can
trace an LSP and localize failures to a particular node along an LSP.
The reader is assumed be familiar with [RFC8029] and its terminology.
LSP ping defines a probe message called the "MPLS echo request". It
also defines a response message called the "MPLS echo reply". Both
messages are encapsulated in UDP and IP. The MPLS echo request
message is further encapsulated in an MPLS label stack, except when
all of the Forwarding Equivalency Classes in the stack correspond to
Implicit Null labels.
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
When operating in ping mode, LSP ping sends a single MPLS echo
request message, with the MPLS TTL set to 255. This message is
intended to reach the egress Label Switching Router (LSR). When
operating in traceroute mode, MPLS ping sends multiple MPLS echo
request messages as defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC8029]. It
manipulates the MPLS TTL so that the first message expires on the
first LSR along the path and subsequent messages expire on subsequent
LSRs.
According to [RFC8029], the IP header that encapsulates an MPLS echo
request message must include a Router Alert Option (RAO).
Furthermore, [RFC8029] also says that the IP header that encapsulates
an MPLS echo reply message must include an RAO if the value of the
Reply Mode in the corresponding MPLS echo request message is "Reply
via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert". In both cases, the
rationale for including an RAO is questionable. Furthermore,
[RFC6398] identifies security vulnerabilities associated with the RAO
in non-controlled environments, e.g., the case of using the MPLS echo
request/reply as inter-domain OAM over the public Internet, and
recommends against its use outside of controlled environments, e.g.,
outside a single administrative domain.
Therefore, this document updates RFC 8029 [RFC8029] to retire the RAO
from both LSP ping message encapsulations and explains why RFC 7506
[RFC7506] has been reclassified as Historic.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Router Alert for LSP Ping (RFC 8029)
2.1. MPLS Echo Request
While the MPLS echo request message must traverse every node in the
LSP under test, it must not traverse any other node. Specifically,
the message must not be forwarded beyond the egress Label Switching
Router (LSR). To achieve this, a set of the mechanisms that are used
concurrently to prevent leaking MPLS echo request messages has been
defined in [RFC8029]:
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
1. When the MPLS echo request message is encapsulated in IPv4, the
IPv4 destination address must be chosen from the subnet 127/8.
When the MPLS echo request message is encapsulated in IPv6, the
IPv6 destination address must be chosen from the subnet
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00:0/104.
2. When the MPLS echo request message is encapsulated in IPv4, the
IPv4 TTL must be equal to 1. When the MPLS echo request message
is encapsulated in IPv6, the IPv6 Hop Limit must be equal to 1.
For further information on the encoding of the TTL/Hop Limit in
an MPLS echo request message, see Section 4.3 of [RFC8029].
3. When the MPLS echo request message is encapsulated in IPv4, the
IPv4 header must include an RAO with the option value set to
"Router shall examine packet" [RFC2113]. When the MPLS echo
request message is encapsulated in IPv6, the IPv6 header chain
must include a Hop-by-hop extension header and the Hop-by-hop
extension header must include an RAO with the option value set to
MPLS OAM [RFC7506].
Currently, all of these are required. However, any one is sufficient
to prevent forwarding the packet beyond the egress LSR.
Therefore, this document changes RFC 8029 [RFC8029] in that
Requirement 3 is removed.
No implementation that relies on the RAO to prevent packets from
being forwarded beyond the egress LSR have been reported to the MPLS
working group.
2.2. MPLS Echo Reply
An LSP ping replies to the MPLS echo request message with an MPLS
echo reply message. Four reply modes are defined in [RFC8029]:
1. Do not reply
2. Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
3. Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert
4. Reply via application-level control channel
The rationale for mode 3 is questionable, if not wholly misguided.
According to RFC 8029 [RFC8029], "If the normal IP return path is
deemed unreliable, one may use 3 (Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
with Router Alert)."
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
However, it is not clear that the use of the RAO increases the
reliability of the return path. In fact, one can argue it decreases
the reliability in many instances, due to the additional burden of
processing the RAO. This document changes RFC 8029 [RFC8029] in that
mode 3 is removed.
No implementations of mode 3 have been reported to the MPLS working
group.
3. Reclassification of RFC 7506 as Historic
RFC 7506 [RFC7506] defines the IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS
Operations, Administration, and Management. This document explains
why RFC 7506 [RFC7506] has been reclassified as Historic.
4. Update to RFC 8029
[RFC8029] requires that the IPv6 Destination Address used in IP/UDP
encapsulation of an MPLS echo request packet is selected from the
IPv4 loopback address range mapped to IPv6. Such packets do not have
the same behavior as prescribed in [RFC1122] for an IPv4 loopback
addressed packet.
[RFC4291] defines ::1/128 as the single IPv6 loopback address.
Considering that, this specification updates Section 2.1 of [RFC8029]
regarding the selection of an IPv6 destination address for an MPLS
echo request message as follows:
OLD
The 127/8 range for IPv4 and that same range embedded in an
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address for IPv6 was chosen for a number of reasons.
RFC 1122 [RFC1122] allocates the 127/8 as the "Internal host loopback
address" and states: "Addresses of this form MUST NOT appear outside
a host." Thus, the default behavior of hosts is to discard such
packets. This helps to ensure that if a diagnostic packet is
misdirected to a host, it will be silently discarded.
RFC 1812 [RFC1812] states:
* A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any
packet that has a destination address on network 127. A router
MAY have a switch that allows the network manager to disable these
checks. If such a switch is provided, it MUST default to
performing the checks.
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
This helps to ensure that diagnostic packets are never IP forwarded.
The 127/8 address range provides 16M addresses allowing wide
flexibility in varying addresses to exercise ECMP paths. Finally, as
an implementation optimization, the 127/8 range provides an easy
means of identifying possible LSP packets.
NEW
The 127/8 range for IPv4 was chosen for a number of reasons.
RFC 1122 [RFC1122] allocates the 127/8 as the "Internal host loopback
address" and states: "Addresses of this form MUST NOT appear outside
a host." Thus, the default behavior of hosts is to discard such
packets. This helps to ensure that if a diagnostic packet is
misdirected to a host, it will be silently discarded.
RFC 1812 [RFC1812] states:
* A router SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any
packet that has a destination address on network 127. A router
MAY have a switch that allows the network manager to disable these
checks. If such a switch is provided, it MUST default to
performing the checks.
This helps to ensure that diagnostic packets are never IP forwarded.
The 127/8 address range provides 16M addresses allowing wide
flexibility in varying addresses to exercise ECMP paths. Finally, as
an implementation optimization, the 127/8 range provides an easy
means of identifying possible LSP packets.
The IPv6 destination address for an MPLS echo request message is
selected as follows:
* For IPv6, the IPv6 loopback address ::1/128 SHOULD be used.
* The sender of an MPLS echo request MAY select the IPv6 destination
address from the 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 range.
* To exercise all paths in an ECMP environment, the entropy other
than the IP destination address SHOULD be used.
END
Additionally, this specification updates Section 2.2 of [RFC8029] to
replace the whole of the section with the following text:
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
LSP Ping implementations SHOULD ignore RAO options when they arrive
on incoming MPLS echo request and MPLS echo reply messages.
Resulting from the removal of the Reply mode 3 "Reply via an IPv4/
IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert" (see Section 2.2), this
specification updates Section 4.5 of [RFC8029] by removing the
following text:
If the Reply Mode in the echo request is "Reply via an IPv4 UDP
packet with Router Alert", then the IP header MUST contain the Router
Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or 69 [RFC7506] for
IPv6. If the reply is sent over an LSP, the topmost label MUST in
this case be the Router Alert label (1) (see [RFC3032]).
Furthermore, this specidication updates Section 4.3 of [RFC8029] as
follows:
OLD:
The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113] for IPv4 or value
69 [RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
NEW:
The Router Alert IP Option of value 0x0 [RFC2113]for IPv4 or value 69
[RFC7506] for IPv6 MUST be set in the IP header.
END
5. Backwards Compatibility
LSP Ping implementations that conform to this specification SHOULD
ignore RAO options when they arrive on incoming MPLS echo request and
MPLS echo reply messages. However, this will not harm backwards
compatibility because other mechanisms will also be in use by all
legacy implementations in the messages they send and receive.
Section 6 of this document deprecates the IPv6 RAO value for MPLS OAM
(69) in [IANA-IPV6-RAO] and the Reply Mode 3 ("Reply via an IPv4/IPv6
UDP packet with Router Alert") in [IANA-LSP-PING].
[RFC8126] offers a formal description of the word "Deprecated". In
this context, "Deprecated" means that the deprecated values SHOULD
NOT be used in new implementations, and that deployed implementations
that already use these values continue to work seamlessly.
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to mark the IPv6 RAO value of MPLS OAM (69) in
[IANA-IPV6-RAO] as "Deprecated".
IANA is also requested to mark Reply Mode 3 ("Reply via an IPv4/IPv6
UDP packet with Router Alert") in "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"[IANA-LSP-PING] as
"Deprecated".
7. Security Considerations
The recommendations this document makes do not compromise security.
In case of using IPv6 loopback address ::1/128 strengthens security
for LSP Ping by using the standardized loopback address with well-
defined behavior.
8. Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Adrian Farrel and Gyan
Mishra for for their suggestions that improved the readability of the
document.
9. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2113, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2113>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
[RFC6398] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.
[RFC7506] Raza, K., Akiya, N., and C. Pignataro, "IPv6 Router Alert
Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and
Maintenance (OAM)", RFC 7506, DOI 10.17487/RFC7506, April
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7506>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
10. Informational References
[IANA-IPV6-RAO]
IANA, "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-
values>.
[IANA-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", n.d.,
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-
parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml>.
Authors' Addresses
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States
Email: kireeti.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RAO-less Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping February 2024
Ron Bonica
Juniper Networks
1133 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
United States
Email: rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx
Greg Mirsky (editor)
Ericsson
Email: gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx
Kompella, et al. Expires 14 August 2024 [Page 10]
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
