ICMP Extensions for Multiprotocol Label Switching
RFC 4950
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2015-10-14
|
08 | (System) | Notify list changed from mpls-chairs@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2007-08-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-08-08
|
08 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4950' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-08-02
|
08 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2007-05-24
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
|
2007-05-23
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
|
2007-05-22
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
|
2007-05-20
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2007-05-15
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-05-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2007-05-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2007-05-14
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2007-05-11
|
08 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2007-05-10 |
|
2007-05-10
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-05-10
|
08 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jon Peterson |
|
2007-05-10
|
08 | Chris Newman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Chris Newman |
|
2007-05-09
|
08 | David Ward | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by David Ward |
|
2007-05-09
|
08 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
|
2007-05-09
|
08 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
|
2007-05-09
|
08 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2007-05-08
|
08 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
|
2007-05-08
|
08 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2007-05-08
|
08 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2007-05-07
|
08 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2007-05-07
|
08 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2007-05-06
|
08 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Sam Hartman |
|
2007-04-24
|
08 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2007-04-23
|
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-23
|
08 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2007-05-10 by Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-23
|
08 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-23
|
08 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
|
2007-04-23
|
08 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2007-04-23
|
08 | Ross Callon | Proto writeup by Loa Andersson and George Swallow (with a little help by Ron Bonica): 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of … Proto writeup by Loa Andersson and George Swallow (with a little help by Ron Bonica): 1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Yes - both over the last month and around IETF44 to 47. 2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document has been widely reviewed over its eight year life. And much more than so it has been implemented and interop-test several times. 3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)? No - the only thing I'm unclear about is the way the icmp documents references each other. There is a normative reference in the mpls document to internet area document, and a informative reference in the internet draft to the mpls draft. I believe this the way of doing it, but I'm not certain. 4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns in the write-up. No - no such issues. 5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? This draft has been widely deployed for over eight years, i.e. support goes way beyond the working roup. 6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email to the Responsible Area Director. No. 7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of the ID Checklist items ? Yes - it passes the verbose mode cleanly. 8. Is the document split into normative and informative references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are also ready for publication as RFCs.) Yes - with the exception for the normative reference to the internet draft, that was announced as of yesterday as approved by the IESG. This will be taken care of by the RFC-Editor. 9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed Standard, Informational?) Proposed Standard. 10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections: * Technical Summary * Working Group Summary * Protocol Quality Technical Summary ================= IP routers use the Internet Control Message Protocol, ICMPv4 [RFC0792] and ICMPv6 [RFC4443], to convey control information to source hosts. Network operators use this information to diagnose routing problems. When a router receives an undeliverable IP datagram, it can send an ICMP message to the host that originated the datagram. The ICMP message indicates why the datagram could not be delivered. It also contains the IP header and leading payload octets of the "original datagram" to which the ICMP message is a response. MPLS Label Switching Routers (LSR) also use ICMP to convey control information to source hosts. Section 2.3 of [RFC3032] describes the interaction between MPLS and ICMP, and Sections 2.4 and 3 of [RFC3032] provide applications of that interaction. When an LSR receives an undeliverable MPLS encapsulated datagram, it removes the entire MPLS label stack, exposing the previously encapsulated IP datagram. The LSR then submits the IP datagram to an error processing module. Error processing can include ICMP message generation. The ICMP message indicates why the original datagram could not be delivered. It also contains the IP header and leading octets of the original datagram. The ICMP message, however, contains no information regarding the MPLS label stack that encapsulated the original datagram when it arrived at the LSR. This omission is significant because the LSR would have forwarded the original datagram based upon information contained by the MPLS label stack. This memo defines an ICMP extension object that permits an LSR to append MPLS information to ICMP messages. Selected ICMP messages SHOULD include the MPLS label stack, as it arrived at the router that is sending the ICMP message. The ICMP message MUST also include the IP header and leading payload octets of the original datagram. The ICMP extensions defined in this document must be preceded by an ICMP Extension Structure Header and an ICMP Object Header. Both are defined in [I-D.bonica-internet-icmp]. The ICMP extension defined in this document is equally applicable to ICMPv4 [RFC0792] and ICMPv6 [RFC4443]. Throughout this document, unless otherwise specified, the acronym ICMP refers to multi-part ICMP messages, encompassing both ICMPv4 and ICMPv6. Working Group Summary ===================== This document was first introduced at IETF 44 and passed WG last call with little controversy soon after IETF 47. During the last two years, about half of its content was moved to draft-bonica-internet-icmp. Version -08 has not been through a wg last call, but this has been approved by the RA ADs. Reason that there are only minimalistic changes to the document that we tried get approved after IETF47. Protocol Quality ================ This protocol has been widely deployed since 1999 with no significant problems reported. /Loa and George with a little help from Ron. |
|
2007-03-14
|
08 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
|
2007-03-09
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Chris Lonvick. |
|
2007-03-08
|
08 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Additional Comments: > Action #2: > Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create new sub-registry > in the ICMP Parameters" registry located … IANA Additional Comments: > Action #2: > Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create new sub-registry > in the ICMP Parameters" registry located at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters > > Subregistry Name: "Extension Object Class sub-types (C-Type)" The subregistry name should probably be (as in Section 7 of RFC-mpls-icmp-08): "MPLS Label Stack Class Sub-types (C-Types for Class-Num 1)" and could be indented, since this subregistry is created by the assignment in Action #1, and there may be other "Extension Object Class sub-types" in the future, much like the "ICMP Code" is subordinate to the "ICMP Type" in the "ICMP Parameters" registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters > Initial contents: > C-Type Description > 0 Reserved [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] > 1 Incoming MPLS Label Stack [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] > 0x02-0xF6 Avaliable for assignment [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] > 0xF7-0xFF Reserved for private use [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] > Following a similar arrangement, Action #2 could look like: Extension Object Class sub-types (C-Type) ========================================= Class-Num Description --------- ----------- 1 MPLS Label Stack Class Sub-types C-Type Description Reference ------ ----------- --------- 0 Reserved [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] 1 Incoming MPLS Label Stack [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] 0x02-0xF6 Avaliable for assignment [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] 0xF7-0xFF Reserved for private use [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] Allocation Policy: C-Type values for Class-num 1 are assignable on a first-come-first-serve (FCFS) basis [RFC2434]. |
|
2007-03-07
|
08 | Yoshiko Fong | IANA Last Call Comments: *This draft depends on the sub-registry created by #53220 | The IANA understands that for each Class-Num number there | will … IANA Last Call Comments: *This draft depends on the sub-registry created by #53220 | The IANA understands that for each Class-Num number there | will be an 8-bit number, a Object Class Description and a | reference to the document that establishes the Object Class. | For each class subtype there will be an 8-bit number, a | Subtype description and a reference to the document that | establishes the Subtype. ----- Action #1: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following assignments in the ICMP Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters sub-registry "ICMP Extension Objects" Clas-NUM Description 1 MPLS Label Stack Class [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] Action #2: Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create new sub-registry in the ICMP Parameters" registry located at http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmp-parameters Subregistry Name: "Extension Object Class sub-types (C-Type)" Initial contents: C-Type Description 0 Reserved [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] 1 Incoming MPLS Label Stack [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] 0x02-0xF6 Avaliable for assignment [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] 0xF7-0xFF Reserved for private use [RFC-mpls-icmp-08] Allocation Policy: C-Type values are assignable on a first-come-first-serve (FCFS) basis [RFC2434]. We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document. |
|
2007-03-02
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2007-03-02
|
08 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Chris Lonvick |
|
2007-02-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
|
2007-02-28
|
08 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
|
2007-02-27
|
08 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
|
2007-02-27
|
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon |
|
2007-02-27
|
08 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2007-02-27
|
08 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2007-02-27
|
08 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2007-02-22
|
08 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
|
2007-02-13
|
08 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
|
2007-02-01
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-08.txt |
|
2006-12-12
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-07.txt |
|
2006-09-28
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-06.txt |
|
2006-03-22
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-05.txt |
|
2005-09-21
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-04.txt |
|
2005-08-03
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-03.txt |
|
2005-07-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-02.txt |
|
2005-07-19
|
08 | Bill Fenner | I-D Resurrection was requested by Bill Fenner |
|
1999-12-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-01.txt |
|
1999-07-19
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-mpls-icmp-00.txt |