MPLS Working Group L. Andersson Internet-Draft Bronze Dragon Consulting Updates: 8029, 8611 (if approved) M. Chen Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Techologies Expires: October 18, 2020 C. Pignataro Cisco Systems T. Saad Juniper Networks April 16, 2020 Updating the IANA MPLS LSP Ping Parameters draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registries-update-02 Abstract This document updates RFC 8029 and RFC 8611 that both define IANA registries for MPLS LSP Ping. It also updates the language that is used to define the procedures for responses are sent when an unkwon or errored code point is found. The updates are for clarification and to align this name space with recent developments. 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 October 18, 2020. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2020 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 Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Requirement Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub- TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Common Changes to the TLV and sub-TLV Registries . . 5 4. Text Chages/Updates to Related RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Text Changes to RFC 8029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Text Changes to RFC 8611 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.1. Updates of Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . 9 6.3. IANA Assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction When RFC 8029 [RFC8029] was published it contained updates to the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" IANA name space [IANA-LSP-PING]. RFC 8611 [RFC8611] updated the LSP Ping IANA registries to match RFC 8029. This document further clarifies the entries in those registries and makes the definitions more precise. This document updates RFC 8029 [[RFC8029] and RFC 8611 [RFC8611] by updating two groups of registries as follows: Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 First the registries for Message Types [IANA-MT], Reply Modes [IANA-RM] and Return Codes [IANA-RC] are updated. The changes to these registries are minor. Second, this document updates the TLV and sub-TLV registries. o TLVs [IANA-TLV-reg] o Sub-TLVs for TLVs 1, 16 and 21 [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 6 [IANA-Sub-6] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 11 [IANA-Sub-11] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 20 [IANA-Sub-20] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 23 [IANA-Sub-23] o Sub-TLVs for TLV 27 [IANA-Sub-27] The registry for sub-TLVs for TLV 9 [IANA-Sub-9] is not updated. Third, some code points (TLVs and sub-TLVs) are "mandatory" and "optional". Contrary to how other RFCs use these words, indicating that it is mandatory or optional to include the code points in a message, RFC 8029 use the words to indicate that an acction might or might nt be nesesary. The words "mandatory and "optional" are dropped and the text is changed to focus on what should be doen. 1.1. Requirement 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. Updating the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries The following changes are made to the Message Types, Reply Modes and Return Codes [IANA-MT] registries. o In the listing of assignments the term "Vendor Private Use" is changed to "Private Use" o a small set of code points (4 code points) for Experimental Use is added by reducing the range for "Private Use". Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration procedures o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" o In the list that capture the assignment status, the fields that are reserved, i.e. 0, Private Use and Experimental Use are clearly marked. * In the Return Codes [IANA-RC] registry the code point "0" already been assigned. This assignment is not changed and this registry will not have the "0" value "Reserved". The new Registration Procedures layout and the new assignments for these registries will be found in Section 6.1. 3. Updating the TLV and sub-TLV registries 3.1. General principles the LSP Ping TLV and sub-TLV registries The following principles are valid for all the LSP Ping TLV and sub- TLV IANA registries o all TLVs and sub-TLVs with a typ in the the range 0-32767 require a response if they are not recognized o all TLVs and sub-TLVs in the range 32768-65535 may be silently dropped if the are not recognized The range of each TLV and sub-TLV registry is divided into wto blocks, one with a range from 0 to 32767 for TLVs and sub-TLVs that require a response if not recognized. Another block in the range from 32768 to 65535, this block is for TLVs and sub-TLVs that may be silently dropped if not recognized. Each of the blocks has code point spaces with the following registration procedures: o Standards Action o RFC Required o Experimental Use Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 o Private Use The exact defintion of registration procedures for IANA registries are found in [RFC8126] 3.1.1. Unrecognized Experimental and Private TLVs and sub-TLVs Unrecognized TLVs and sub-TLVs for Expereimetal USe and Privagte Use are handled as any other unrecognised TLV or sub-TLV. o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use range (37144-37147) or from the Private Use range (31748-32767) a the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") will be sent in the echo response. o If the unrecognized TLV or sub-TLV is from the Experimental Use range (64512-64515) or from the Private Use range (64515-65535) the TLVs SHOULD be silently ignored. IETF does not prescribe how recognized or unrecognized Experimental Use and Private Use TLVs and sub-TLVs are handled in experimental or private networks, that is up to the agency running the experiment or the private network. The statement above relates to how standard compliant implementations will treat the unrecognized TLVs and sub- TLVs from these ranges. 3.2. Changes to the LSP Ping Registries This section lists the changes to each MPLS LSP Ping Registry. Section 6.1, Section 6.2 and Section 6.3 set out how the new versions of the IANA registries should look, together with the registration procedures. 3.2.1. Common Changes to the TLV and sub-TLV Registries The following changes are made to the TLV and sub-TLV registries. o the registration procedures "Private Use" and "Experimental Use" are added to the table of registration procedures o two small sets of code points (2 times 4 code points) for experimental use is added, actually they are take from the range for "Private Use". o the registration procedure "Specification Required" is changed to "RFC Required" and the note "Experimental RFC needed" is removed Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 o In the listing of assignements the term "Vendor Private Use" is changed to "Private Use" o In the listing of assignments the range for "Experimental Use" is added o A note "Not to be assigned" is added for the registration procedures "Experimental Use" and "Private Use" o In the list that capture assignment status, the fields that are reserved, i.e. 0, Experimental Use and Private Use are clearly marked. The new Registration Procedures description and the new assignments for these registries will be found in Section 6.2 and Section 6.3. 4. Text Chages/Updates to Related RFCs Some referenced RFCs are using the concept "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs" to indicate that if a TLV or sub-TLV of the range 0-16383 or 16384-31743 is present in a message but not understood, error message need to be sent in response. Since other RFCs are using "mandatory TLVs" and "mandatory sub-TLVs" to indicate TLVs and sub-TLVs that must be present in a message, we want to discontinue the use of "mandatory" to indicate TLVs and sub- TLVs that requires an error message in response if not understood. The changes to the RFCs below are intended to align with this practice. 4.1. Text Changes to RFC 8029 Mandatory and optional is used in this way on page 14 and 15 in Section 3 of RFC 8029. The text in those two paragraphs are now changed to: TLV and sub-TLV Types less than 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 0) are TLVs and sub-TLVs that MUST either be supported by an implementation or result in the Return Code of 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not understood") being sent in the echo response. An implementation that does not understand or support a received TLV or sub-TLV with Type greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 1) SHOULD ignore and step over the TLV or sub-TLV, however an implementation MAY send an echo response with Return Code 2 ("One or more of the TLVs was not Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 understood") as it would have doen if the high order bit had been clear. In Section 3.8 of RFC 8029 "mandatory" is used in the same way. The first two paragaraphs of this section ar now changed to read: The following TLV is a TLV that MAY be included in an echo reply to inform the sender of an echo request icluding TLVs or sub-TLVs Types greater than or equal to 32768 (i.e., with the high-order bit equal to 1) are iether nor supported by the implementation or parsed and found to be in error. The Value field contains the TLVs, including sub-TLVs, that were not understood, encoded as sub-TLVs. 4.2. Text Changes to RFC 8611 The "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry is now updated to align with changes defined in this document. The registration procedures for the "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6" registry will now be like this: +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | Range | Registration | Note | | | Procedures | | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 31744-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for sub-TLVs that | | | | can be silently dropped if not | | | | recognized. | | 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for sub-TLVs that | | | | can be silently dropped if not | | | | recognized. | | 64512-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6 Registration Procedures Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 5. Security Considerations This document updates IANA registries, some terminology used to define, and clarifies the terminology related to the code points in the registries. The document does not change how the code-points in the registries are used. This should not create any new threats. However, the updated terminology and the clarifications improve security because it makes it more likely that implementations will be consistent and harder to attack. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to update the LSP Ping name space as described in this document. 6.1. Updates of Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes Registries This section details the updated registration procedures and allocations for: Message Type, Reply Mode and Return Codes registries. +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | Range | Registration | Note | | | Procedures | | +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ | 0-191 | Standards Action | | | 192-247 | RFC Required | | | 248-251 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 252-255 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | +---------+--------------------+------------------------------------+ New common registration procedures +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ | Value | Meaning | Reference | +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1-247 | No changes to the existing | | | | assignments | | | 248-251 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 252-255 | Reserved for Private Use | [RFC8029] | +---------+---------------------------------+-----------------------+ Common Assignments for the Message Types, Reply Mode and Return Code registries Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 Note that for the Return Code registry the assignment for code point zero has been previously assigned, it is not changed but will remain: +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ | Value | Meaning | Reference | +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ | 0 | No return code | [RFC8029] | +-------+----------------------------------+------------------------+ Assignment for code point 0 in the Return Code registry 6.2. Common Registration Procedures for TLVs and sub-TLVs This section describes the new registration procedures for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed. +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | Range | Registration | Note | | | Procedures | | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ | 0-16383 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 16384-31743 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that | | | | require an error message if not | | | | recognized. | | 37144-37147 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 31748-32767 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | | 32768-49161 | Standards Action | This range is for TLVs that can | | | | be silently dropped if not | | | | recognized. | | 49162-64511 | RFC Required | This range is for TLVs that can | | | | be silently dropped if not | | | | recognized. | | 64512-64515 | Experimental Use | Not to be assigned | | 64515-65535 | Private Use | Not to be assigned | +-------------+-------------------+---------------------------------+ TLV and sub-TLV Registration Procedures 6.3. IANA Assignments for TLVs and sub-TLVs The two tables in this section describes the updated IANA assignments for the TLV and sub-TLV registries. The registry for sub-TLV 9 ([IANA-Sub-9] is not changed. Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ | Type | TLV name | Reference | sub-TLV | | | | | registry | +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | | | 1-31743 | [any] | No changes to | [any] | | | | the current | | | | | registry | | | 37144-37147 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Experimental Use | | | | 31748-32767 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Private Use | | | | 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to | [any] | | | | the current | | | | | registry. | | | 64512-64515 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Experimental Use | | | | 64515-65535 | Reserved for | This document | NA | | | Private Use | | | +-------------+-------------------+------------------+--------------+ TLV Assignments Updated Sub-TLV assignments +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | Type | TLV name | Reference | +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | 0 | Reserved | This document | | 1-31743 | [any] | No changes to the | | | | current registry | | 37144-37147 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 31748-32767 | Reserved for Private Use | This document | | 32768-64511 | [any] | No changes to the | | | | current registry. | | 64512-64515 | Reserved for Experimental Use | This document | | 64515-65535 | Reserved for Private Use | This document | +-------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ Sub-TLV Assignments 7. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Adrian Farrel, who both made very useful comments and agreed to serve as the document shepherd. Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 The authors also wish to thank Micelle Cotton who very patiently worked with us to determine how our registries could and should be updated. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [IANA-LSP-PING] "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml/>. [IANA-MT] "Message Types", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls- lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#message-types>. [IANA-RC] "Return Codes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls- lsp-ping-parameters/#return-codes>. [IANA-RM] "Reply Modes", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp- ping-parameters/#reply-modes>. [IANA-Sub-1-16-21] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Types 1, 16, and 21", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/https://www.iana.org/ assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-1-16-21>. [IANA-Sub-11] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 11", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-11>. [IANA-Sub-20] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 20", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-20>. [IANA-Sub-23] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 23", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-23>. Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 [IANA-Sub-27] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 27", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-27>. [IANA-Sub-6] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 6", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-6>. [IANA-TLV-reg] "TLVs", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml#tlvs>. [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>. [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>. [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>. [RFC8611] Akiya, N., Swallow, G., Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., Drake, J., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces", RFC 8611, DOI 10.17487/RFC8611, June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8611>. 8.2. Informative References [IANA-Sub-9] "Sub-TLVs for TLV Type 9", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/mpls-lsp-ping- parameters.xhtml#sub-tlv-9>. Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LSP Ping Registries April 2020 [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>. Authors' Addresses Loa Andersson Bronze Dragon Consulting Email: loa@pi.nu Mach Chen Huawei Techologies Email: mach.chen@huawei.com Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems Email: cpignata@cisco.com Tarek Saad Juniper Networks Email: tsaad@juniper.net Andersson, et al. Expires October 18, 2020 [Page 13]
