Skip to main content

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