RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (mpls WG)
Last updated 2019-10-04 (latest revision 2019-08-08)
Replaces draft-nainar-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Loa Andersson
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2019-06-02)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Deborah Brungard
Send notices to Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
RFC Editor RFC Editor state RFC-EDITOR
Network Work group                                             N. Nainar
Internet-Draft                                              C. Pignataro
Updates: 8287 (if approved)                          Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                                F. Iqbal
Expires: February 9, 2020                                     Individual
                                                           A. Vainshtein
                                                             ECI Telecom
                                                          August 8, 2019

                  RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification
              draft-ietf-mpls-rfc8287-len-clarification-04

Abstract

   RFC8287 defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
   Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
   (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane.  RFC8287 proposes 3 Target FEC Stack
   Sub-TLVs.  While the standard defines the format and procedure to
   handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the
   length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in
   the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability
   issues.

   This document updates RFC8287 by clarifying the length of each
   Segment ID Sub-TLVs defined in RFC8287.

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 February 9, 2020.

Nainar, et al.          Expires February 9, 2020                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification       August 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Length field clarification for Segment ID Sub-TLVs  . . . . .   3
     4.1.  IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.2.  IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.3.  IGP-Adjacency Segment ID Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8287] defines the extensions to MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute for
   Segment Routing IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifier
   (SIDs) with an MPLS data plane.  [RFC8287] proposes 3 Target FEC
   Stack Sub-TLVs.  While the standard defines the format and procedure
   to handle those Sub-TLVs, it does not sufficiently clarify how the
   length of the Segment ID Sub-TLVs should be computed to include in
   the Length field of the Sub-TLVs which may result in interoperability
   issues.

   This document updates [RFC8287] by clarifying the length of each
   Segment ID Sub-TLVs defined in [RFC8287].

Nainar, et al.          Expires February 9, 2020                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft    RFC8287 Sub-TLV Length Clarification       August 2019

2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminologies defined in [RFC8402], [RFC8029],
   [RFC8287] and so the readers are expected to be familiar with the
   same.

3.  Requirements notation

   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
Show full document text