Requirements for Label Edge Router Forwarding of IPv4 Option Packets
draft-dasmith-mpls-ip-options-01
Document | Type |
Replaced Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | William Jaeger , John Mullooly , Tom Scholl , David Smith | ||
Last updated | 2010-01-05 (Latest revision 2008-10-06) | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | Replaced by draft-ietf-mpls-ip-options | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This document imposes a new requirement on Label Edge Routers (LER) specifying that when determining whether to MPLS encapsulate an IP packet, the determination is made independent of any IP options that may be carried in the IP packet header. Lack of a formal standard may result in a different forwarding behavior for different IP packets associated with the same prefix-based Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). While an IP packet with either a specific option type or no header option may follow the MPLS label switched path (LSP) associated with a prefix-based FEC, an IP packet with a different option type but associated with the same prefix-based FEC may bypass MPLS encapsulation and instead be IP routed downstream. IP option packets that fail to be MPLS encapsulated simply due to their header options present a security risk against the MPLS infrastructure.
Authors
William Jaeger
John Mullooly
Tom Scholl
David Smith
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)