MPLS Network Action (MNA) Header Encodings
draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jaganbabu Rajamanickam , Rakesh Gandhi , Royi Zigler , Haoyu Song , Kireeti Kompella | ||
| Last updated | 2022-10-10 | ||
| Replaces | draft-jags-mpls-ext-hdr | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-02
MPLS Working Group J. Rajamanickam, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Gandhi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 13 April 2023 R. Zigler, Ed.
Broadcom
H. Song, Ed.
Futurewei Technologies
K. Kompella, Ed.
Juniper Networks
10 October 2022
MPLS Network Action (MNA) Header Encodings
draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr-02
Abstract
This document defines the MPLS Network Action (MNA) Header encoding
formats to carry Network Actions and optionally Ancillary Data in the
label stack and post label stack. The MPLS Network Action can be
used for example, to influence the forwarding decisions or to carry
additional OAM information in the MPLS packet. This document
addresses the MNA requirements specified in draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
requirements. This document follows the MNA framework specified in
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk.
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 13 April 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Network Action Sub-Stack Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. In-Stack Network Action Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Reserved In-Stack MPLS Network Action Opcodes . . . . . . . . 8
5. Post-Stack MPLS Network Action Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Network Action Processing Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. In-Stack NA Processing Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Post-Stack NA Processing Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.3. Mix of In-Stack and Post-Stack NA Processing Order . . . 12
7. Handling of Unsupported Network Actions . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. MNA for Segment Routing Label Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Node Capability Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Processing In-Stack MPLS Network Actions . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13.1. IANA Considerations for MNA NASS Encoding Parameters . . 15
13.2. IANA Considerations Flag-Based Network Actions . . . . . 16
13.3. IANA Considerations for I2E and HBH/Select
IS-NAI-Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.4. IANA Considerations for NASI bSPL Label . . . . . . . . 19
14. Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.1. Network Action Encoding Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14.1.1. Example-1 - Flag-Based In-Stack NA without AD . . . 19
14.1.2. Example-2 - In-Stack NA with 12-bit AD . . . . . . . 21
14.1.3. Example-3 - Carry only Post-Stack NA Indicator . . . 21
14.1.4. Example-4 - In-Stack NA with more than 20-bit AD . . 21
14.1.5. Example-5 - Carry Both I2E and HBH Scope NASS . . . 23
14.1.6. Example-6 - Carry Both Select and HBH Scope NASS . . 23
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
[RFC3032] defines MPLS Header for carrying a stack of MPLS labels
which are used to forward packets in an MPLS network. Today's new
applications require the MPLS packets to carry network action
indicators and optional Ancillary Data (AD) that can be used for
example, in MPLS packet forwarding decision or for OAM purpose.
Ancillary Data can be used to carry additional information, for
example, a network slice identifier, In-Situ OAM (IOAM) data, etc.
Several MNA applications are described in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases].
This document defines a solution to encode MPLS Network Actions (MNA)
in an MPLS Label Stack those are efficient to process in hardware.
The MPLS Network Actions are encoded in the form of flags and
opcodes. These MPLS Network Actions can be encoded without Ancillary
Data (AD) or with In-Stack Ancillary Data (ISD) or with Post-Stack
Ancillary Data (PSD) (i.e., after the Bottom of the Stack (BOS)). A
new base Special Purpose Label (bSPL) (value TBA1) is to be assigned
to indicate the presence of MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack (MNAS) in
the MPLS packet. This document addresses the MNA requirements
specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]. This document follows
the MNA framework specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk].
2. Conventions Used in This Document
2.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
The MNA terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] and
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements] are used in this document.
* AD: Ancillary Data.
* BOS: Bottom Of Stack.
* IHS: I2E, HBH, Select Scope.
* I2E: Ingress-To-Egress.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
* HBH: Hop-By-Hop Scope.
* ISD: In-Stack Data.
* IS-NA: In-Stack Network Action.
* IS-NAI-Opcode: In-Stack Network Action Opcode.
* LSE: 32-bit Label Stack Entry.
* MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching.
* MNA: MPLS Network Action.
* NAI: Network Action Indicator.
* NAI-OP: Network Action Indicator Opcode.
* NAL: Length of Network Action in number of LSEs, excluding the LSE
for Opcode.
* NASL: Length of Network Action sub-stack in number of LSEs.
* NASI: Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator.
* NASS: Network Action Sub-Stack.
* PS-NA: Post-Stack Network Action.
* P,H: Post-Stack Network Action Presence and Post-Stack Hop-By-hop
presence Indicator.
* PSD: Post-Stack Data.
* bSPL: Base Special Purpose Label in the range of 0-15.
* TC: Traffic Class.
* TTL: Time To Live.
3. Overview
The solution for encoding MPLS Network Actions includes two high-
level parts as shown in Figure 1.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
1. Network Action Sub-Stack Header - The Network Action Sub-Stack
Indicator label indicates the presence of MPLS Network Action Sub-
Stack in the MPLS label stack. The NASS encoding parameters
indicate the structure of the NASS.
2. In-Stack Network Actions Encoding - The encoding in which the
MPLS Network Actions are carried in the MPLS header. This
includes Network Action Indicator (NAI) and Ancillary Data (AD).
The Network Action can be In-Stack and Post-Stack.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI Label = bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode | Flag-Based NAIs or AD |R|NAL|S|P,H|IHS| NASL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|<--NASS Param->|
Figure 1: Network Action Sub-Stack Header
Both parts of the encoding solution are described below.
3.1. Network Action Sub-Stack Header
Network Action Sub-Stack Header contains NASI Label and NASS encoding
parameters as described below.
NASI Label:
A new bSPL value (value TBA1) is assigned to indicate the presence of
the MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack (NASS).
Note: The TC and TTL fields of the new bSPL are not re-purposed for
NASS encoding parameters, as the penultimate node on the MPLS packet
path may propagate TTL and TC fields from the transport (or
forwarding) LSE to the next LSE on the label stack, overwriting the
TTL and TC fields of the next LSE, as specified in Section 3.5 of
[RFC3443]. When the penultimate node is not aware of the NASI bSPL
(value TBA1) e.g., in case of legacy network, this can cause NASS
parameters in the TTL of the NASI label to be corrupted.
NASS Encoding Parameters:
The TTL field in the second LSE is used to encode NASS encoding
parameters. The NASS encoding parameters contain scope and the
length of NASS as well as presence flags for Post-Stack Network
Action and Ancillary Data.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
NASS Scope:
This indicates the scope (HBH / Select / I2E) of NASS for different
nodes (e.g., midpoint nodes and egress node) where it needs to be
processed.
Separate NASS Per Scope:
If a packet requires to carry both HBH and I2E scoped In-Stack NAs,
then one NASS with scope of HBH and one NASS with scope I2E are added
in the MPLS label stack. The I2E scoped NASS is added closer to the
BOS whereas HBH and Select scoped NASS are added closer to the top of
the label stack. This makes it easier for the midpoint nodes to
process only the NASS with HBH scope in hardware.
* IHS (I2E, HBH, and Select Scope): This 2-bit value indicates the
scope of In-Stack NAIs.
+======+==========+
| Bits | Scope |
+======+==========+
| 00 | I2E |
+------+----------+
| 01 | HBH |
+------+----------+
| 10 | Select |
+------+----------+
| 11 | Reserved |
+------+----------+
Table 1: In-Stack NAI
Scope Table
* P,H (Post-Stack Network Action Presence and Post-Stack Hop-By-hop
processing Indicator):
This is 2-bit flag, where "P" bit indicates the presence of Post-
Stack Network Actions and "H" bit indicates the presence of Post-
Stack Hop-By-Hop and/or Select processing scope options. While
encoding the Post-Stack NAs, the HBH/Select scope NAs MUST be
encoded first (closer to the BOS) and then I2E.
NASL (Network Action Sub-Stack Length):
This is a 4-bit field in the TTL. This indicates the total length of
the current NASS. This value does not include the first two LSEs in
the NASS. This value is used by the ASICs to process the NASS.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
NAL (Network Action Length):
The 2-bit field in TC is used to carry the number of additional LSEs
used to carry the Ancillary Data for the Network Action. It does not
include the 1st LSE that contains the NAI-Opcode.
In the case where the node does not support the NAI-Opcode value, the
NA length is used to skip the NAI-Opcode and move to the next Opcode
and continue processing.
R bit:
R bit in the TC field is Reserved for future use.
3.2. In-Stack Network Action Encoding
The MPLS Network Action encoding carried as part of the MPLS label
stack uses Opcodes for indicating Network Actions (called NAI-
Opcodes).
The encoding format defined is flexible (e.g., stackable opcodes in
desired order), extensible (by defining new NAI-Opcodes) and ASIC
friendly (by using Sub-Stack Length, Opcode and Data in the same
LSE). This encoding format also allows to carry the Flag-Based NAIs
that do not require AD and the Flag-Based NAIs that require AD in the
same packet.
The opcode method of identifying a specific Network Actions are
common in today's hardware ASICs (Similar to any IPv4/IPv6/VxLAN
header processing), so this method is easy to be adopted by the
existing hardware. This will allow the hardware ASICs to serially or
in-parallel process the Network Actions.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode | Ancillary Data |R|NAL|S|P,H|IHS| NASL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode | Ancillary Data |R|NAL|S| Ancillary Data|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: MPLS Label Stack Entry (LSE) Format
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
In-Stack Network Actions are encoded in the TLV format. NAI-Opcode
represents NA Indicator Type, NAL represents NA Length and Ancillary
Data represents NA Value.
* It uses MPLS Label field to carry the Network Action Indicator
Opcode and associated In-Stack Ancillary Data (can be NAI Flags).
* It uses Traffic Class (TC) field to carry the Length of the In-
Stack Network Action's Ancillary Data.
* It uses MPLS Label and Time-To-Live (TTL) fields to carry the In-
Stack Ancillary Data (can be NAI Flags).
NAI-Opcode:
This is the first 8-bit value in the Label Field.
Ancillary Data:
This is the additional Data carried to process the Network Action
specified by the NAI-Opcode.
* The 12 bits of the Label field is used to carry the Ancillary Data
* Apart from the Label field, part of AD is also carried in the
8-bit TTL field except for the 2nd LSE in the NASS. If an
application needs only 12-bit of AD, then 2nd LSE can be used for
NAI-Opcode otherwise it can use the next LSE for 20-bit of AD.
* Some applications need to change the Ancillary Data for the same
flow, in those cases the data is encoded in the the TTL field.
NOTE: ECMP Hash Using Label Stack:
A midpoint node may use the entire MPLS Label Stack for ECMP hash
computation hence the In-Stack MPLS extension header MUST NOT
change the Label Field part of the Ancillary Data within the same
traffic flow. But the TTL part of In-Stack Ancillary Data can
change for the same traffic flow without affecting the ECMP hash.
The In-Stack Network Action encoding defined above ensures this.
4. Reserved In-Stack MPLS Network Action Opcodes
This opcode ranges from 1 to 255.
NAI-Opcode value of 0 is marked as invalid to avoid the label value
from aliasing with the reserved bSPLs.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Some of the opcodes are reserved as described below for the basic
functionality and the rest of the opcodes are assigned by IANA.
* IS-NAI-Opcode Value:1 (PSD Offset) - Opcode reserved to indicate
the start offset of the Post-Stack Network Actions header after
the MPLS Label Bottom of the Stack. This can allow to carry
Generic Control Word (0000b) [RFC4385] and G-ACh (0001b) [RFC5586]
fields immediately after the BOS. Adding of this opcode is not
required when the BOS data starts immediately after the Bottom of
the Label Stack (i.e. when offset is 0)
* IS-NAI-Opcode Value:2 (Flag-Based NAIs with No AD) - Opcode
reserved to carry the Flag-Based NAIs those do not require
Ancillary Data. These NAI flag bits are carried in the Ancillary
Data field of the Opcode.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: In-Stack Flags-Based NA Encoding Format
The Flags bit position for a specific application will be
maintained and allocated by IANA.
* IS-NAI-Opcode Value:3 (Flag-Based NAIs with ADs) - Opcode reserved
to carry the Flag-based NAIs with ADs in the next LSEs.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=3 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 1 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Ancillary Data |S|Ancillary Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: In-Stack Flag-Based NAs with Ancillary Data
The NASS is carrying the reserved opcode 3 for Flags-Based NAIs
that require ADs.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
* IS-NAI-Opcode Value:4 (PSD Network Action Indicator Opcode) -
Opcode reserved to indicate that a specific Post-Stack Network
Action has to be executed in order with respect to the In-Stack
Opcode.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=4 | Post-Stack-NAI |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: In-Stack PSD Opcode Indicator Encoding Format
A NAI-Opcode 4 is reserved to carry Post-Stack NA as AD. This
NAI-Opcode can be used to specify the ordering between In-Stack
and Post-Stack Network Actions.
* IS-NAI-Opcode Value:5-254 (Application Defined Opcode) - MUST be
assigned by IANA. When this opcode is allocated for a specific
applications Network Action, the respective application MUST
define the Ancillary Data format and other required attributes
like functionality, scope (I2E / HBH/ SEL) of the Network Action.
* IS-NAI-Opcode Value:255 (Extended Opcode) - IANA Allocated for IS-
NAI-Opcode range extension. This gives the extensibility for
opcode range beyond 255. The Extended 8-bit opcode value will be
encoded next to base opcode value 255.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|NAI-Opcode=255 |Ex-NAI-Opcode=9| AD9 |R| 0 |S| AD9 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: In-Stack Extended Opcode Encoding Format
In the above example, the extended Opcode "9" is encoded in the
packet. In this case only 12 bits of AD could be encoded in the
same LSE, if the application requires to encode more than 12 bits
then it had to use next LSE to encode the rest of the AD.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
5. Post-Stack MPLS Network Action Encoding
Based on the P and H flags, the Post-Stack Network Actions are
processed. The details of the Post-Stack Network Action Extension
Header encoding is specified in [I-D.song-mpls-extension-header].
6. Network Action Processing Order
Depending on the application, each NA will be processed at different
stages of the ASICs pipeline. But in some cases, there may be
contention between processing two NAs at the same stage of ASICs, in
those cases the processing order should be maintained, so that the
result of the packet forwarding and OAM data collection will be
predictable.
6.1. In-Stack NA Processing Order
This section talks about maintaining the ordering between the In-
Stack NA processing.
The order of processing the NA should follow the order of NAs encoded
in the NASS.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=5 | Ancillary Data5 |R| 0 |S|Ancillary Data5|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Example In-Stack NA Processing Order
In the above example, a node will process the Flags-Based-NAIs first
and then the NAI-Opcode "5".
In some cases, some Flag-Based NAIs may need to be processed before
the NAI-Opcode "5" and some Flag-Based NAIs may need to be process
after the NAI-Opcode "5".
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | 0x01 |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=5 | Ancillary Data5 |R| 0 |S|Ancillary Data5|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | 0x02 |R| 0 |S| 0x00 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Example In-Stack NA Processing Order
In the above example, the Flag-Based NAI "0x1" is processed before
the NAI-Opcode "5" and the Flags-Based NAI "0x2" is processed after
the NAI-Opcode "5".
6.2. Post-Stack NA Processing Order
Post-Stack NAs follow ordering specified in
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header].
6.3. Mix of In-Stack and Post-Stack NA Processing Order
In some cases, Post-Stack NA needs to be processed before In-Stack
NA. This section describes how to prioritize the Post-Stack NAs over
the In-Stack NAs.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | 0x01 |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=4 | Post-Stack-NAI6 |R| 0 |S| PS-NAI6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=5 | Ancillary Data5 |R| 0 |S|Ancillary Data5|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Example Post-Stack and In-Stack NA Processing Order
In the above example, the Flag-Based NAIs required to be processed
first, followed by the Post-Stack NA "6" and then In-Stack NAI-Opcode
"5". The NAI-Opcode "4" is a reserved opcode which can be used for
ordering between the In-Stack and Post-Stack. In this example, the
AD field of the NAI-Opcode "4" carries the Post-Stack NA that is
processed before processing the NAI-Opcode "5".
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
7. Handling of Unsupported Network Actions
When a node encounters an unsupported NAI-Opcode in the NASS it is
processing, the node skips processing that NAI-Opcode using the NAL
field and moves to processing the next NAI-Opcode.
When a node encounters a Flag-based NAI that it doesn't support, it
stops further processing the Flag-Based NAIs in that NAI-Opcode.
This is because the Flag-Based NAI may or may not have AD and a node
will not be able to know the length for each Flag-Based-NAI.
The node MUST NOT drop the packet when it encounters any NA in the
MNA NASS that it does not support.
8. MNA for Segment Routing Label Stack
For packets with Segment Routing [RFC8662] MPLS label stack, a copy
of NASS with HBH and Select scope is placed at regular depth
throughout the MPLS label stack, with the understanding that the
current copy of the NASS will eventually rise to the top of the label
stack.
For HBH scope, every node processes the current copy of the NASS and
the node that pops the forwarding label that exposes the NASS will
not remove it but forward it to the next node (i.e., segment endpoint
node). The segment endpoint node that receives the NASS at the top
of the label stack has to remove it.
For I2E scope, only one copy of NASS needs to be added and it is
added near the bottom of the stack.
9. Node Capability Signaling
The node capability for the MPLS Network Action must be signaled
before the MPLS Encapsulating node can add the necessary MPLS Network
Action in the MPLS Label Stack. The capability signaling will be
added in LDP, RSVP-TE, BGP, IS-IS, OSPF, BGP-LS, etc. This is
outside the scope of this document.
10. Security Considerations
The security considerations in [RFC3032] also apply to the procedures
defined in this document. The NASI Label (bSPL TBA1) MUST NOT be
exposed on the node which does not support it.
11. Backward Compatibility
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
* For the legacy node that does not advertise the MPLS Network
Action capability, the Encapsulating node MUST make sure that the
MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack indicator is not at the top of the
MPLS Label Stack to avoid dropping the packets. Based on the
signalling, if the MPLS egress node is not capable of the
processing MPLS Network Actions then it should not add MNA in the
packet. In the worst case, if the legacy routes that does not
understand the new bSPL allocated then those routers will drop the
packets.
* The MPLS Network Action Encoding format is designed to make sure
that it does not alias with any reserved bSPL.
* The MPLS Network Actions can co-exist with the existing GAL /
G-ACh based encoding of data.
* The TC and TTL fields of the NASI bSPL are not re-purposed for
encoding, as the penultimate node on the MPLS packet path may
propagate TTL from the transport (or forwarding) label to the next
label on the label stack, overwriting the TTL on the next label.
When the penultimate node is not aware of the NASI bSPL (value
TBA1), this can cause encoding format flags in the TTL of the NASI
(label TBA1) label to be corrupted.
12. Processing In-Stack MPLS Network Actions
Encapsulating Node:
* MUST NOT add In-Stack MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack if the
decapsulation node is not capable of In-Stack MPLS Network Action.
* SHOULD NOT change the IS-NAI-Opcode and the first 12 bits of the
In-Stack Ancillary Data for the same packet flow to avoid ECMP
path change.
* MAY change In-Stack Ancillary Data part present only in the TTL
field for the same packet flow.
* MUST ensure that the penultimate node does not remove the NASS.
Midpoint Node:
* MUST ignore the IS-NAI-Opcode that are not supported.
* MUST NOT add In-Stack NASS if the decapsulation node is not
capable of In-Stack MPLS Network Actions.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
* SHOULD NOT change the IS-NAI-Opcode and the first 12 bits of the
In-Stack Ancillary Data for the same packet flow.
* MAY change In-Stack Ancillary Data part present only in the TTL
field for the same packet flow.
* MAY remove the IS-NAI-Opcode and its Ancillary Data for all
matching packet flow.
Penultimate Node:
* MUST ignore the IS-NAI-Opcode that are not supported.
* MUST NOT remove the NASS when it is exposed after removing the
forwarding (transport) label.
Decapsulating Node:
* MUST remove the MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack.
13. IANA Considerations
Below are the IANA actions which this document is requesting.
The registries created by this document will be collected in a new
registry grouping called "MPLS Network Action," which will be located
at https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-network-action.
13.1. IANA Considerations for MNA NASS Encoding Parameters
IANA is requested to create a new registry with name "MNA NASS
Encoding Parameters" to assign the bit position and the meaning to
the Parameters that re-purpose TTL and TC fields in the Label Stack
Entry (LSE).
+==============+=============+===============+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
+==============+=============+===============+
| 20-31 | IETF Review | This document |
+--------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 2: MNA NASS Encoding Parameters Registry
Following NASS Encoding Parameter values are assigned from this
registry.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
+=======+===========================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+===========================+===========+
| 28-31 | In-Stack Network Action | This |
| | Sub-Stack Length (NASL) | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 26-27 | In-Stack Scope value | This |
| | E2H/HBH/SEL(IHS) | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 25 | Post-Stack Hop-By-Hop | This |
| | Processing Indicator | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 24 | Post-Stack Network Action | This |
| | Presence Indicator | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 23 | End of Stack (S) | RFC 3032 |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 21-22 | In-Stack Network Action | This |
| | Length (NAL) | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
| 20 | Reserved Bit (R) | This |
| | | document |
+-------+---------------------------+-----------+
Table 3: MNA NASS Encoding Parameter Values
13.2. IANA Considerations Flag-Based Network Actions
IANA is requested to create a new registry with name "In-Stack MPLS
Network Action Indicator Flags" to assign a bit position and the
meaning to the Flag-Based Network Action upon the user request.
Based on the need this registry can be extended beyond 12 bit
positions.
+==============+=============+===============+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
+==============+=============+===============+
| 11-0 | Unassigned | This document |
+--------------+-------------+---------------+
Table 4: In-Stack MPLS Network Action
Indicator Flags Registry
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
13.3. IANA Considerations for I2E and HBH/Select IS-NAI-Opcode
IANA is requested to create a new registry with name "I2E In-Stack
MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" to assign IS-NAI-Opcode
values. All code-points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry
shall be allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as
specified in [RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in
this registry shall be allocated according to the "First Come First
Served" procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code-points
are allocated according to Table 5:
+===========+=========================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===========+=========================+===============+
| 0 - 175 | IETF Review | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 176 - 239 | First Come First Served | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 240 - 251 | Experimental Use | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
Table 5: I2E In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator
Opcodes Registry
Following I2E IS-NAI-Opcode Indicator values are assigned from this
registry.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
+=======+=============================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Offset of start of Post- | This document |
| | Stack Network Action Header | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | Flag-Based Network Action | This document |
| | Indicators with No AD | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Flag-Based Network Action | This document |
| | Indicators with AD | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | Post-Stack Network Action | This document |
| | Indicator | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 255 | Opcode Range Extension | This document |
| | Beyond 255 | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
Table 6: I2E In-Stack Network Action Indicator
Opcode Values
IANA is requested to create a new registry with name "HBH and Select
In-Stack MPLS Network Action Indicator Opcodes" to assign IS-NAI-
Opcode values. This registry is also used for Select scope. All
code-points in the range 1 through 175 in this registry shall be
allocated according to the "IETF Review" procedure as specified in
[RFC8126]. Code points in the range 176 through 239 in this registry
shall be allocated according to the "First Come First Served"
procedure as specified in [RFC8126]. Remaining code-points are
allocated according to Table 5:
+===========+=========================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+===========+=========================+===============+
| 0 - 175 | IETF Review | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 176 - 239 | First Come First Served | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 240 - 251 | Experimental Use | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
| 252 - 254 | Private Use | This document |
+-----------+-------------------------+---------------+
Table 7: HBH and Select In-Stack MPLS Network
Action Indicator Opcodes Registry
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Following HBH and Select IS-NAI-Opcode Indicator values are assigned
from this registry.
+=======+=============================+===============+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=============================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Offset of start of Post- | This document |
| | Stack Network Action Header | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | Flag-Based Network Action | This document |
| | Indicators with No AD | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 3 | Flag-Based Network Action | This document |
| | Indicators with AD | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 4 | Post-Stack Network Action | This document |
| | Indicator | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
| 255 | Opcode Range Extension | This document |
| | Beyond 255 | |
+-------+-----------------------------+---------------+
Table 8: HBH and Select In-Stack Network Action
Indicator Opcode Values
13.4. IANA Considerations for NASI bSPL Label
IANA is requested to allocate a value TBA1 for the NASI bSPL label
from the "Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry to
indicate the presence of MNA Sub-Stack in MPLS header.
14. Appendix
14.1. Network Action Encoding Examples
14.1.1. Example-1 - Flag-Based In-Stack NA without AD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Example NASS with In-Stack Network Action Encoding
Carrying Flag- Based NA
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Second LSE:
Label Field:
* NAI-Opcode is set to "2".
* Next 12 bits are used to encode the Flag-Based Network Actions
that do not need Ancillary Data. Each bit encoded is a unique
Flag-Based Network Action. This bit position will be assigned by
IANA. For example, an application A can be allocated Flag
position as "2" and another application B can be allocated Flag
position as "5". If application A and B needs to set their
Network Actions then the bit positions "2" and "5" will be set to
1.
TC Field:
NAL - This value depends on the number of LSEs carrying the NAI
Flags in the MPLS In-Stack header is carrying. In this case, the
packet is carrying only bit position "1" and "3", both in one LSE,
the NAL will be set to "0".
TTL Field:
NASL value is set to "0" as no additional LSEs are encoded.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 1 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Additional Flag-Based NAIs |S|Flag-Based-NAIs|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Example NASS carrying Flag-Based NA with more than 12
Flags
In this example, let us assume that an application-C has been
allocated a Flag position of "21" by IANA, If the application-C needs
to execute its Network Action on the MPLS packet then the 2nd bit in
the third Label field will be set to indicate the Flags position
"13".
NAL is set to "1" indicates the Flag-Based NAIs are also encoded in
the next LSE.
NASL is set to "1" indicates the additional In-Stack LSE is encoded.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
While encoding the Additional Ancillary Data in the 3rd LSE, the Most
Significant bit MUST be set to "1" to prevent from aliasing with the
reserved bSPLs.
14.1.2. Example-2 - In-Stack NA with 12-bit AD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=6 | Ancillary Data6 |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 12: Example NASS carrying In-Stack Network Action that
requires Ancillary Data
In this example, the NASS is carrying only the In-Stack Network
Action that requires 12-bit Ancillary Data.
The 8-bit value contains the NAI-Opcode.
Next 12 bits carries the AD for the NAI-Opcode "6".
No additional LSE is encoded so NAL value is set to "0".
14.1.3. Example-3 - Carry only Post-Stack NA Indicator
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | 0 |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 13: Example NASS carrying only Post-Stack NA Indicator
In this example, the NASS is carrying only the indicator for the
presence of Post-Stack NA and its Hop-By-Hop Option.
In this case only "P" and "H" bits are set to "1" as required.
14.1.4. Example-4 - In-Stack NA with more than 20-bit AD
An In-Stack Network Action may require more than 20 bits of Ancillary
Data. In this example, the following Ancillary Data encoding is
used.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|IHS|NASL=2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=8 | Ancillary Data8 |R| 1 |S|Ancillary Data8|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Ancillary Data8 |S|Ancillary Data8|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 14: Example In-Stack Network Action With Additional
Ancillary Data Encoding Format
In this example, the In-Stack NAI-Opcode "8" requires more than 20
bits of Ancillary Data to be encoded. The NA and AD are encoded in
the 3rd and 4th LSEs.
Third LSE:
Label Field
* The 8-bit in the Label Field carries the NAI-Opcode value "8".
* Next 12 bits in the Label Field carries the part of AD.
TC Field
The 2-bit of the TC field carries Network Action Length (NAL). In
this case, since it uses additional LSE to carry its AD the NAL
value is set to "1".
TTL Field
This 8-bit field carries second part of the AD.
Fourth LSE:
Label Field
* The first bit in the Label field MUST be set to "1". This is to
prevent aliasing the label field with other bSPLs on the legacy
routers. The AD value encoded could vary and it cannot be
controlled. If we assume in the above example, the application
encodes the 4th LSEs Label field as value "7", then legacy node
could miss-understood for Entropy label indicator and may start
processing the packet accordingly, which could end-up in wrong
packet forwarding behaviour.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
* Next 19 bits in the Label field carries 3rd part of AD.
TC Field
3-bit TC field carries the continuation of 3rd part of AD.
TTL Field
8-bit TTL field carries the rest of AD.
14.1.5. Example-5 - Carry Both I2E and HBH Scope NASS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|H01|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=6 | Ancillary Data6 |R| 0 |S|P,H|E00|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 15: Example NASS carrying Both I2E and HBH Scope NAs
In this example, one NASS is added for HBH scope with IHS field set
to 01b and another NASS is added for I2E scope with IHS field set to
00b.
14.1.6. Example-6 - Carry Both Select and HBH Scope NASS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=2 | Flag-Based NAIs |R| 0 |S|P,H|H01|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NASI=bSPL (TBA1) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NAI-Opcode=6 | Ancillary Data6 |R| 0 |S|P,H|S10|NASL=0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Figure 16: Example NASS carrying Both Select and HBH Scope NAs
In this example, one NASS is added for HBH scope with IHS field set
to 01b and another NASS is added for Select scope with IHS field set
to 10b.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[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>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
[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>.
15.2. Informative References
[I-D.song-mpls-extension-header]
Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., Andersson, L., Zhang, Z.,
Gandhi, R., Rajamanickam, J., and J. Bhattacharya, "MPLS
Extension Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-song-mpls-extension-header-10, 1 September 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-song-mpls-
extension-header-10.txt>.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions Framework", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-01.txt, 8 September 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-
01.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "Requirements for
MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
requirements-03.txt, 19 August 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
requirements-03.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
Saad, T., Makhijani, K., and H. Song, "Usecases for MPLS
Indicators and Ancillary Data", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-00, 19 May
2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-usecases-00.txt>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, DOI 10.17487/RFC4385,
February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4385>.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would like to thank the MPLS Working
Group Design Team for the discussions and comments on this document.
The authors would also like to thank Amanda Baber for reviewing the
IANA Considerations and providing many useful suggestions.
Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Jisu Bhattacharya
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: jisu@cisco.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com
Sami Boutros
Ciena
Email: sboutros@ciena.com
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MPLS Network Action Encodings October 2022
Tony Li
Juniper Networks
United States
Email: tony.li@tony.li
John Drake
Juniper Networks
United States
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Figure 17
Authors' Addresses
Jaganbabu Rajamanickam (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: jrajaman@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Royi Zigler (editor)
Broadcom
Email: royi.zigler@broadcom.com
Haoyu Song (editor)
Futurewei Technologies
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Kireeti Kompella (editor)
Juniper Networks
United States
Email: kireeti.ietf@gmail.com
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 13 April 2023 [Page 27]