draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-06.txt 
MPLS Working Group R. Bonica MPLS Working Group R. Bonica
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei
Expires: April 4, 2016 Google, Inc. Expires: May 4, 2016 Google, Inc.
M. Conn M. Conn
D. Pacella D. Pacella
L. Tomotaki L. Tomotaki
Verizon Verizon
October 2, 2015 November 1, 2015
LSP Self-Ping LSP Self-Ping
draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05 draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-06
Abstract Abstract
When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
nodes, traffic can be lost. nodes, traffic can be lost.
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 46
3. The LSP Self-ping Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. The LSP Self-ping Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Bidirectional LSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Bidirectional LSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix A. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to Ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to
establish MPLS Label Switched Paths. The following paragraphs establish MPLS Label Switched Paths. The following paragraphs
describe RSVP-TE procedures. describe RSVP-TE procedures.
The ingress LSR calculates a path between itself and an egress LSR. The ingress LSR calculates a path between itself and an egress LSR.
The calculated path can be either strictly or loosely routed. Having The calculated path can be either strictly or loosely routed. Having
skipping to change at page 8, line 40 skipping to change at page 8, line 40
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned UDP Port Number 8503 [IANA.PORTS] for use by LSP IANA has assigned UDP Port Number 8503 [IANA.PORTS] for use by LSP
Self-ping. Self-ping.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
LSP Self-ping messages are easily forged. Therefore, an attacker can LSP Self-ping messages are easily forged. Therefore, an attacker can
send the ingress LSR a forged LSP Self-ping message, causing the send the ingress LSR a forged LSP Self-ping message, causing the
ingress LSR to terminate the LSP Self-ping session prematurely. In ingress LSR to terminate the LSP Self-ping session prematurely. In
order to mitigate these threats, implementations SHOULD NOT assign order to mitigate these threats, operators SHOULD filter LSP Self-
Session-ID's in a predictable manner. Furthermore, operators SHOULD ping packets at the edges of the MPLS signaling domain. Furthermore,
filter LSP Self-ping packets at network ingress points. implementations SHOULD NOT assign Session-ID's in a predictable
manner. In order to avoid predictablity, imlementations can leverage
a Cryptographically Secure Pseudo-randomn Number Generator (CSPRNG)
[NIST-CSPRNG]
8. Contributors 8. Contributors
The following individuals contributed significantly to this document: The following individuals contributed significantly to this document:
Mark Wygant Mark Wygant
Verizon Verizon
mark.wygant@verizon.com mark.wygant@verizon.com
Ravi Torvi Ravi Torvi
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
rtorvi@juniper.net rtorvi@juniper.net
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgements
skipping to change at page 10, line 35 skipping to change at page 10, line 35
Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(S-BFD)", draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03 (work in (S-BFD)", draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03 (work in
progress), April 2014. progress), April 2014.
[IANA.PORTS] [IANA.PORTS]
IANA, "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number IANA, "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ Registry", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
service-names-port-numbers/ service-names-port-numbers/
service-names-port-numbers.txt>. service-names-port-numbers.txt>.
[NIST-CSPRNG]
"NIST Special Publication 800-90A, Recommendation for
Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit
Generators", January 2012.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration [RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594, Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
[RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to [RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to
Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established
Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, DOI 10.17487/RFC6383, September Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, DOI 10.17487/RFC6383, September
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6383>. 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6383>.
 End of changes. 9 change blocks. 
9 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/