MPLS Working Group                                          L. Andersson
Internet-Draft                                  Bronze Dragon Consulting
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Bryant
Expires: 29 December 2022                      University of Surrey 5GIC
                                                                M. Bocci
                                                                   Nokia
                                                                   T. Li
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                            27 June 2022


                     MPLS Network Actions Framework
                    draft-andersson-mpls-mna-fwk-04

Abstract

   This document specifies an architectural framework for the MPLS
   Network Actions (MNA) technologies.  MNA technologies are used to
   indicate actions for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) and/or MPLS packets
   and to transfer data needed for these actions.

   The document describes a common set of network actions and
   information elements supporting additional operational models and
   capabilities of MPLS networks.  Some of these actions are defined in
   existing MPLS specifications, while others require extensions to
   existing specifications to meet the requirements found in
   "Requirements for MPLS Network Action Indicators and Ancillary Data".

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 29 December 2022.







Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 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
     1.1.  Requirement Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.1.  Normative Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.2.  Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Scopes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Partial Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.3.  Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.4.  Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.5.  State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  The MNA Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.1.  Existing Base SPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.2.  New Base SPL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.3.  New Extended SPL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.1.4.  User-Defined Label  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  TC and TTL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.2.1.  TC and TTL retained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.2.2.  TC and TTL Repurposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  Length of the NAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.3.1.  Last/Continuation Bits  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.3.2.  Length Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.4.  Encoding of Scopes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Encoding a Network Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.5.1.  Bit Catalogs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.5.2.  Operation Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     3.6.  Encoding of Post-Stack Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.6.1.  First Nibble Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Definition of a Network Action  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13



Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Editorial attic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.1.  Process Note on E2E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.2.  Concepts used in this Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.3.  LSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     9.4.  MPLS Forwarding model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       9.4.1.  Orginal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies an architectural framework for the MPLS
   Network Actions (MNA) technologies.  MNA technologies are used to
   indicate actions for LSPs and/or MPLS packets and to transfer data
   needed for these actions.

   The document describes a common set of network actions and
   information elements supporting additional operational models and
   capabilities of MPLS networks.  Some of these actions are defined in
   existing MPLS specifications, while others require extensions to
   existing specifications to meet the requirements found in
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements].

   Forwarding actions are instructions to MPLS routers to apply
   additional actions when forwarding a packet.  These might include
   load-balancing a packet given its entropy, whether or not to perform
   fast reroute on a failure, and whether or not a packet has metadata
   relevant to the forwarding decisions along the path.

   This document generalizes the concept of "forwarding actions" into
   "network actions" to include any action that an MPLS router is
   requested to take on the packet.  That includes any forwarding
   action, but may include other operations (such as security functions,
   OAM procedures, etc.) that are not directly related to forwarding of
   the packet.

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
   BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.




Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


1.2.  Terminology

1.2.1.  Normative Definitions

   This document adopts the definitions of the following terms and
   abbreviations from [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements] as
   normative: "Network Action", "Network Action Indication (NAI)",
   "Ancillary Data (AD)", and "Scope".

   In addition, this document also defines the following terms:

   *  Network Action Sub-Stack (NAS): A set of related, contiguous Label
      Stack Entries (LSEs) in the MPLS label stack.  The TC and TTL
      values in the LSEs in the NAS may be redefined, but the meaning of
      the S bit is unchanged.

   *  Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator (NSI): The first LSE in the NAS
      contains a special label that indicates the start of the NAS.

1.2.2.  Abbreviations

   +==============+===========+=======================================+
   | Abbreviation | Meaning   | Reference                             |
   +==============+===========+=======================================+
   | AD           | Ancillary | [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements] |
   |              | Data      |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | bSPL         | Base      | [RFC9017]                             |
   |              | Special   |                                       |
   |              | Purpose   |                                       |
   |              | Label     |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | ECMP         | Equal     |                                       |
   |              | Cost      |                                       |
   |              | Multipath |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | eSPL         | Extended  | [RFC9017]                             |
   |              | Special   |                                       |
   |              | Purpose   |                                       |
   |              | Label     |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | HBH          | Hop by    | In the MNA context, this document.    |
   |              | hop       |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | I2E          | Ingress   | In the MNA context, this document.    |
   |              | to Egress |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | ISD          | In stack  | [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements] |



Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   |              | data      |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | LSE          | Label     | [RFC3032]                             |
   |              | Stack     |                                       |
   |              | Entry     |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | MNA          | MPLS      | This documnent                        |
   |              | Network   |                                       |
   |              | Actions   |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | NAI          | Network   | [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements] |
   |              | Action    |                                       |
   |              | Indicator |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | NAS          | Network   | This document                         |
   |              | Action    |                                       |
   |              | Sub-Stack |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | PSD          | Post      | [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements] |
   |              | stack     | and Section 3.6                       |
   |              | data      |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+
   | SPL          | Special   | [RFC9017]                             |
   |              | Purpose   |                                       |
   |              | Label     |                                       |
   +--------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+

                          Table 1: Abbreviations

2.  Structure

   An MNA solution is envisioned as a set of network action sub-stacks,
   plus possible post-stack data.  A solution must specify where in the
   label stack the network actions sub-stacks occur, if and how
   frequently they should be replicated, and how network action sub-
   stack and post-stack data are encoded.

   A network action sub-stack contains:

   *  Network Action Sub-Stack Indicator: The first LSE in the NAS
      contains a special label, called the MNA label, that is used to
      indicate the start of a network action sub-stack.

   *  Indicators: Optionally, a set of indicators that describes the set
      of network actions.  If the set of indicators is not in the sub-
      stack, a solution could encode them in post-stack data.  A network
      action is said to be present if there is an indicator in the
      packet that invokes the action.



Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   *  In-Stack Data: A set of zero or more LSEs that carry ancillary
      data for the present network actions.  Indicators are not
      considered ancillary data.

   Each network action present in the network action sub-stack may have
   zero or more LSEs of in-stack data.  The ordering of the in-stack
   data LSEs corresponds to the ordering of the network action
   indicators.  The encoding of the in-stack data, if any, for a network
   action must be specified in the document that defines the network
   action.

   Certain network actions may also specify that data is carried after
   the label stack.  This is called post-stack data.  The encoding of
   the post-stack data, if any, for a network action must be specified
   in the document that defines the network action.  If multiple network
   actions are present and have post-stack data, the ordering of their
   post-stack data corresponds to the ordering of the network action
   indicators.

   A solution must specify the order that network actions are to be
   applied to the packet.

2.1.  Scopes

   A network action may need to be processed by every node along the
   path, or some subset of the nodes along its path.  Some of the scopes
   that an action may have are:

   *  Hop-by-hop (HBH): Every node along the path will perform the
      action.

   *  Ingress-to-Egress (I2E): Only the last node on the path will
      perform the action.

   *  Select: Only specific nodes along the path will perform the
      action.

   If a solution supports the select scope, it must describe how it
   specifies the set of nodes to perform the actions.

2.2.  Partial Processing

   As described in [RFC3031], legacy devices that do not recognize the
   MNA label will discard the packet if the top label is the MNA label.

   Devices that do recognize the MNA label may not implement all of the
   present network actions.  A solution must specify how unrecognized
   present network actions should be handled.



Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   One alternative is that an implementation should stop processing
   network actions when it encounters an unrecognized network action.
   Subsequent present network actions would not be applied.  The result
   is dependent on the solution's order of operations.

   Another alternative is that an implementation should drop any packet
   that contains any unrecognized present network actions.

   A third alternative is that an implementation should perform all
   recognized present network actions, but ignore all unrecognized
   present network actions.

   Other alternatives may also be possible and should be specified by
   the solution.

2.3.  Signaling

   A node that wishes to make use of MNA and apply network actions to a
   packet must understand the nodes that the packet will transit and
   whether or not the nodes support MNA and the network actions that are
   to be invoked.  These capabilities are presumed to be signaled by
   protocols that are out-of-scope for this document and are presumed to
   have per-network action granularity.  If a solution requires
   alternate signaling, it must specify so explicitly.

   A node that pushes a NAS onto the label stack is responsible for
   determining that all nodes that should process the NAS will have the
   NAS within its Readable Label Depth (RLD).  A node should use
   signaling (e.g., [RFC9088]) to determine this.

2.4.  Positioning

   A network action sub-stack should never occur at the top of the MPLS
   label stack.  A node that is responsible for popping a forwarding
   label immediately above a network action sub-stack must also pop any
   network action sub-stacks that immediately follow.

2.5.  State

   A network action can affect state in the network.  This implies that
   a packet may affect how subsequent packets are handled.

3.  Encoding

   Several possibilities to carry NAI's have been discussed in MNA
   drafts and in the MPLS Open DT.  In this section, we enumerate the
   possibilities and some considerations for the various alternatives.




Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   All types of network actions are represented in the MPLS label stack
   by a set of LSEs termed a network action sub-stack (NAS).  An NAS
   consists of a special label, optionally followed by LSEs that specify
   which network actions are to be performed on the packet, and the in-
   stack ancillary data for each indicated network action.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements] requires that a solution not
   add unnecessary LSEs to the sub-stack (Section 3.1, requirement 6).
   Accordingly, solutions should also make efficient use of the bits
   within the sub-stack, as inefficient use of the bits will result in
   the addition of unnecessary LSEs.

3.1.  The MNA Label

   The first LSE in a network action sub-stack contains a special label
   that indicates a network action sub-stack.  A solution has several
   choices for this special label.

3.1.1.  Existing Base SPL

   A solution may reuse an existing Base SPL (bSPL).  If it elects to do
   so, it must explain how the usage is backwards compatible, including
   in the case where there is ISD.

3.1.2.  New Base SPL

   A solution may select a new bSPL.

3.1.3.  New Extended SPL

   A solution may select a new eSPL.  If it elects to do so, it must
   address the requirement for the minimal number of LSEs.

3.1.4.  User-Defined Label

   A solution may allow the network operator to define the label that
   indicates the network action sub-stack.  This creates management
   overhead for the network operator to coordinate the use of this label
   across all nodes on the path using management or signaling protocols.
   If a solution elects to use a user-defined label, the solution should
   justify this overhead.

3.2.  TC and TTL

   In the first LSE of the network action sub-stack, only the 20 bits of
   Label Value and the Bottom of Stack bit are significant, the TC field
   (3 bits) and the TTL (8 bits) are not used.  This leaves 11 bits that
   could be used for other purposes.



Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


3.2.1.  TC and TTL retained

   If the solution elects to retain the TC and TTL field, then the first
   LSE of the network action sub-stack would appear as:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |               Label                   | TC  |S|      TTL      |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Label:  Label value, 20 bits
                   TC:     Traffic Class, 3 bits
                   S:      Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
                   TTL:    Time To Live

   Further LSEs would be needed to encode NAIs.  If a solution elects to
   retain these fields, it must address the requirement for the minimal
   number of LSEs.

3.2.2.  TC and TTL Repurposed

   If the solution elects to reuse the TC and TTL field, then the first
   LSE of the network action sub-stack would appear as:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                Label                  |x x x|S|x x x x x x x x|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                   Label:  Label value, 20 bits
                   x:      Bit available for solution definition
                   S:      Bottom of Stack, 1 bit

   The solution may use more LSEs to contain NAIs.

3.3.  Length of the NAS

   A solution must have a mechanism to indicate the length of the NAS.
   This must be easily processed even by implementations that do not
   understand the full contents of the NAS.  Two options are described
   below, other solutions may be possible.










Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


3.3.1.  Last/Continuation Bits

   A solution may use a bit per LSE to indicate whether the NAS
   continues into the next LSE or not.  The bit may indicate
   continuation by being set or by being clear.  The overhead of this
   approach is one bit per LSE and has the advantage that it can
   effectively encode an arbitrarily sized NAS.  This approach is
   efficient if the NAS is small.

3.3.2.  Length Field

   A solution may opt to have a fixed size length field at a fixed
   location within the NAS.  The fixed size of the length field may not
   be large enough to support all possible NAS contents.  This approach
   may be more efficient if the NAS is longer, but not longer than can
   be described by the length field.

   Advice from hardware designers advocates a length field as this
   minimizes branching in the logic.

3.4.  Encoding of Scopes

   A solution may choose to explicitly encode the scope of the actions
   contained in a network action sub-stack.  A solution may also choose
   to have the scope encoded implicitly, based on the actions present in
   the network action sub-stack.  This choice may have performance
   implications as an implementation might have to parse the network
   actions that are present in a network action sub-stack only to
   discover that there are no actions for it to perform.

   Solutions need to consider the order of scoped NAIs and their
   associated AD within individual sub-stacks and the order of per-scope
   sub-stacks in order that network actions and the AD can be most
   readily found and not need to processed by nodes that are not
   required to handle those actions.

3.5.  Encoding a Network Action

   Two options for encoding NAIs are described below, other solutions
   may be possible.  Any solution should allow encoding of an arbitrary
   number of NAIs.










Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


3.5.1.  Bit Catalogs

   A solution may opt to encode the set of network actions as a list of
   bits, sometimes known as a catalog.  The solution must provide a
   mechanism to determine how many LSEs are devoted to the catalog.  A
   set bit in the catalog would indicate that the corresponding network
   action is present.

   Catalogs are efficient if the number of present network actions is
   relatively high and if the size of the necessary catalog is small.
   For example, if the first 16 actions are all present, a catalog can
   encode this in 16 bits.  However, if the number of possible actions
   is large, then a catalog can become inefficient.  Selecting only one
   action that is the 256th action would require a catalog of 256 bits,
   which would require more than one LSE.

   A solution may include a bit remapping mechanism so that a given
   domain may optimize for its commonly used actions.

3.5.2.  Operation Codes

   A solution may opt to encode the set of present network actions as a
   list of operation codes (opcodes).  Each opcode is a fixed number of
   bits.  The size of the opcode bounds the number of network actions
   that the solution can support.

   Opcodes are efficient if there are only one or two active network
   actions.  For example, if an opcode is 8 bits, then two active
   network actions could be encoded in in 16 bits.  However, if there
   are 16 actions required, then opcodes would consume 128 bits.
   Opcodes are efficient at encoding a large number of possible actions.
   If only the 256th action is to be selected, that still requires 8
   bits.

3.6.  Encoding of Post-Stack Data

   If there are multiple instances of post-stack data, they should occur
   in the same order as their relevant network action sub-stacks and
   then in the same order as their relevant network functions occur
   within the network action sub-stacks.

3.6.1.  First Nibble Considerations

   The first nibble after the label stack has been used to convey
   information in certain cases.






Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   For example, in [RFC4928] this nibble is investigated to find out if
   it has the value "4" or "6", if it is not, it is assumed that the
   packet payload is not IPv4 or IPv6 and Equal Cost Multipath (ECMP) is
   not performed.

   It should be noted that this is an inexact method, for example an
   Ethernet Pseudowire without a control word might have "4" or "6" in
   the first nibble and thus will be ECMP'ed.

   Nevertheless, the method is implemented and deployed, it is used
   today and will be for the foreseeable future.

   The use of the first nibble for BIER is specified in [RFC8296].  Bier
   sets the first nibble to 5.  The same is true for BIER payload, as
   for any use of the first nibble, it is not possible from the first
   nibble itself being set to 5, conclude that the payload is BIER.
   However, it achieves the design goal of [RFC8296], to exclude that
   the payload is IPv4, IPv6 or a pseudowire.

   There are possibly more examples, they will be added if we find that
   they further highlight the issue with using the first nibble.

   [Ed.  Outstanding comments from Adrian:

   Shouldn't we include RFC4385 for 0b0000 for the PW control word and
   0b0001 for the PW ACH?

   This section is all very well, but it doesn't give any direction to
   the solution developer for what they should do with the first nibble
   in the post stack data.

   Is it also relevant to note that there may be other post-stack
   information that comes before the payload (such as the PW control
   word, and that the solution must consider the location of the post-
   stack data in relaiton to that (e.g., immeidately after the LSE with
   the S bit set) etc.]

4.  Definition of a Network Action

   Network actions should be defined in a document and must contain:

   *  Name: The name of the network action.

   *  Network Action Indicator: The bit position or opcode that
      indicates that the network action is active.






Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   *  Scope: The document should specify which nodes should perform the
      network action.  The action may apply to each transit node (HBH),
      only the egress node that pops the final label off of the label
      stack, or specific nodes along the label switched path.

   *  State: The document should specify if the network action can
      modify state in the network, and if so, the state that may be
      modified and its side-effects.

   *  Required/Optional: The document should specify whether a node is
      required to perform the network action.

   *  In-Stack Data: The number of LSEs of in-stack data, if any, and
      its encoding.  If this is of a variable length, then the solution
      must specify how an implementation can determine this length
      without implementing the network action.

   *  Post-Stack Data: The encoding of post-stack data, if any.  If this
      is of a variable length, then the solution must specify how an
      implementation can determine this length without implementing the
      network action.

   A solution should create an IANA registry for network actions.

5.  Management Considerations

   Network operators will need to be cognizant of which network actions
   are supported by which nodes and will need to ensure that this is
   signalled appropriately.  Some solutions may require network-wide
   configuration to synchronize the use of the labels that indicate the
   start of an NAS.  Solution documents must make clear what management
   considerations apply to the solutions they are describing.  Solutions
   documents must describe mechanisms for performing network diagnostics
   in the presence of MNAs.

6.  Security Considerations

   The forwarding plane is insecure.  If an adversary can affect the
   forwarding plane, then they can inject data, remove data, corrupt
   data, or modify data.  MNA additionally allows an adversary to make
   packets perform arbitrary network actions.

   Link-level security mechanisms can help mitigate some on-link
   attacks, but does nothing to preclude hostile nodes.

   End-to-end encryption of an LSP can help provide security, but would
   make it impossible to process post-stack data.




Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not make any allocations of code points from IANA
   registries.

   As long as the "does not make any allocations ..." from IANA is true,
   this pragraph should be removed by the RFC-Editor.  If it turns out
   that we will need to do IANA allocation, a proper IANA section will
   be added.

8.  Acknowledgements

   This document is the result of work started in MPLS Open Desgign
   Team, with participation by the MPLS, PALS and DETNET working groups.

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel for his contributions
   and to John Drake for his comments.

9.  Editorial attic

   This section contains old material that will be discarded before
   publication, assuming we don't find it useful between now and then.

9.1.  Process Note on E2E

   There has been some discussion on the of the E2E abbreviation. 1.  In
   a mail to the MPLS Working group mailing list Joel Halpern pointed
   out that the abbreviation E2E has been used in several different
   meanings.  Joel suggested to use another abbreviation.

   1.  Some variants has been proposed, for example.

       *  Ingress to Egress (I2E); alernative abbreviation (i2e)

       *  Egress

       *  LSP Ingress to LSP Egress (LI2LE)

       *  Egress (because the Ingress has already done its thing)

       *  Ultimate Hop

       *  Destination

       *  Start-to-End

       *  Last-LSR




Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


       *  Head to Tail

   In a few days (counting from the publication date of this document)
   the working group chairs will take an initiative to poll the working
   groups for consensus on this.

9.2.  Concepts used in this Framework

          +=============+====================+===========+======+
          | Concept     | Meaning            | Reference | Note |
          +=============+====================+===========+======+
          | E2E concept | E2E in MNA context | this      | -    |
          |             | is defined in...   | document  |      |
          +-------------+--------------------+-----------+------+
          | concept     | free text          | this      | -    |
          |             |                    | document  |      |
          +-------------+--------------------+-----------+------+

                             Table 2: Concepts

   Not complete, help appreciated.  [Ed.  This section is planned for
   removal as it seems unhelpful so far.]

9.3.  LSE

   An individual LSE has the following format [RFC3032]:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                Label                  |  TC |S|        TTL    |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                  Label:  Label Value, 20 bits
                  TC:     Traffic Class, 3 bits
                  S:      Bottom of Stack, 1 bit
                  TTL:    Time to Live, 8 bits

                    Figure 1: A Label Stack Entry (LSE)

9.4.  MPLS Forwarding model

   This is section here to basically to have a place holder where to
   discuss the development of the MPLS forwrding model.  It might be
   removed.  [Ed.  So far, it adds no value.  Wave bye-bye.]

9.4.1.  Orginal Model




Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                                                                 |
    |  +---------------------+                                        |
    |  | +------------+      |                                        |
    |  | | MPLS Label |  LSE |                                        |
    |  | +---|--------+      |                                        |
    |  +-----|---------------+                                        |
    |        |                                                        |
    |        |  +----------------------+                              |
    |        |  |                  FIB |                              |
    |        |  |                      |                              |
    |        |  |     +------------+   |     +----------------------+ |
    |        +------->|FIB Entry   |-----+-->|Forwarding Code       | |
    |           |     +------------+   | |   +----------------------+ |
    |           +----------------------| |                            |
    |                                  | |   +----------------------+ |
    |                                    +-->|Forwarding Parameters | |
    |                                        +----------------------+ |
    |                                                                 |
    |                                                                 |
    | LSE = Label Stack Entry (what many people call a label)         |
    | FIB = Forwarding Information (date)Base                         |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------+

                  Figure 2: MPLS Original Forwarding Model

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-miad-mna-requirements]
              Bocci, M. and S. Bryant, "Requirements for MPLS Network
              Action Indicators and MPLS Ancillary Data", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-
              requirements-00, 5 May 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mpls-miad-mna-
              requirements-00.txt>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3031>.




Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   [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>.

   [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>.

   [RFC9017]  Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-
              Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017>.

   [RFC9088]  Xu, X., Kini, S., Psenak, P., Filsfils, C., Litkowski, S.,
              and M. Bocci, "Signaling Entropy Label Capability and
              Entropy Readable Label Depth Using IS-IS", RFC 9088,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9088, August 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9088>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4928]  Swallow, G., Bryant, S., and L. Andersson, "Avoiding Equal
              Cost Multipath Treatment in MPLS Networks", BCP 128,
              RFC 4928, DOI 10.17487/RFC4928, June 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4928>.

   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

Authors' Addresses

   Loa Andersson
   Bronze Dragon Consulting
   Email: loa@pi.nu


   Stewart Bryant
   University of Surrey 5GIC
   Email: sb@stewartbryant.com


   Matthew Bocci
   Nokia
   Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com



Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                MNA Framework                    June 2022


   Tony Li
   Juniper Networks
   Email: tony.li@tony.li
















































Andersson, et al.       Expires 29 December 2022               [Page 18]