Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED
draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2017-05-25
Replaced by rfc8469, draft-ietf-pals-ethernet-cw
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
PALS Working Group                                             S. Bryant
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Malis
Updates: 4448 (if approved)                                       Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                             I. Bagdonas
Expires: November 26, 2017                                       Equinix
                                                            May 25, 2017

                Use of Ethernet Control Word RECOMMENDED
                    draft-bryant-pals-ethernet-cw-00

Abstract

   The pseudowire (PW) encapsulation of Ethernet, as defined in RFC4448,
   specifies that the use of the control word (CW) is optional.  In the
   absence of the CW an Ethernet pseudowire packet can be misidentified
   as an IP packet by a label switching router (LSR).  This in turn may
   lead to the selection of the wrong equal-cost-multi-path (ECMP) path
   for the packet, leading in turn to the mis-ordering of packets.  This
   problem has become more serious due to the deployment of equipment
   with Ethernet MAC addresses that start with 0x4 or 0x6.  The use of
   the Ethernet PW CW addresses this problem.  This document recommends
   the use of the Ethernet pseudowire control word in all but
   exceptional circumstances.

   This document updates RFC4448.

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 http://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 November 26, 2017.

Bryant, et al.          Expires November 26, 2017               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           Ethernet CW RECOMMENDED                May 2017

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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
   (http://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 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
   2.  Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Recommendation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Equal Cost Multi-path (ECMP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Differential Treatment of Traffic Flows . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  Mitigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Operational Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   11. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The pseudowire(PW) encapsulation of Ethernet, as defined in RFC4448,
   specifies that the use of the control word (CW) is optional.  It is
   common for label switching routers (LSRs) to search past the end of
   the label stack to determine whether the payload is an IP packet, and
   if the payload is an IP packet, to select the next hop based of the
   so called "five-tuple" (IP source address, IP destination address,
   protocol/next-header, transport layer source port and transport layer
   destination port).  In the absence of a PW CW an Ethernet pseudowire
   packet can be misidentified as an IP packet by a label switching
   router (LSR) selecting the ECMP path based on the five-tuple.  This
   in turn may lead to the selection of the wrong equal-cost-multi-path
   (ECMP) path for the packet, leading in turn to the mis-ordering of
   packets.  Further discussion of this topic is published in [RFC4928].

Bryant, et al.          Expires November 26, 2017               [Page 2]
Show full document text