Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12

MPLS Working Group                                         M. Bocci, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Nokia
Intended status: Informational                                 S. Bryant
Expires: 7 October 2024                         University of Surrey ISC
                                                                J. Drake
                                                             Independent
                                                            5 April 2024

      Requirements for Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions
                  draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements-12

Abstract

   This document specifies requirements for the development of MPLS
   Network Actions which affect the forwarding or other processing of
   MPLS packets.  These requirements are informed by a number of
   proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the labeled packet
   to allow such actions to be performed, either by a transit or
   terminating Label Switching Router (i.e., the Label Edge Router -
   LER).

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 7 October 2024.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2024 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

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  MPLS Network Action Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  General Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Requirements on the MNA Alert Mechanism . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Requirements on Network Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Requirements on Network Action Indicators . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Requirements on Ancillary Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   There is significant interest in developing the MPLS data plane to
   address the requirements of new use cases
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases], which require a general mechanism,
   termed MPLS Network Actions, for enhanced forwarding or other
   processing of MPLS packets.  These use cases require the definition
   of extensions to the MPLS architecture and label stack operations
   that can be used across these use cases in order to minimise
   implementation complexity and promote interoperability and
   extensibility.  This mechanism needs to conform to the existing MPLS
   architecture as specified by, among other documents, [RFC3031],
   [RFC3032], and [RFC6790].

   Note that the MPLS architecture specified in [RFC3031] describes a
   mechanism for forwarding packets through a network without requiring
   any analysis of the packet payload's network layer header by
   intermediate nodes (Label Switching Routers - LSRs).  Formally,
   inspection may only occur at network ingress (the Label Edge Router -
   LER) where the packet is assigned to a Forwarding Equivalence Class
   (FEC).

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   This document specifies the requirements for solutions that encode
   MPLS Network Actions and ancillary data that may be needed by the
   processing of those actions.  These requirements are informed by a
   number of proposals for additions to the MPLS information in the
   labeled packet to allow such actions to be performed, either by a
   transit or terminating LSR.  It is anticipated that these will result
   in two types of solution specification:

   1.  A specification that describes a common protocol that suports all
       forms of MPLS Network Actions.  This is referred to as the MNA
       Solution.

   2.  One or more specifications describing the protocol extensions,
       and utilising (1), for network action(s) to realise a use case.
       These are referred to as Network Action solutions.

   The term 'solutions', in isolation, refers to both MNA and Network
   Action solutions.

1.1.  Terminology

   *  Network Action: An operation to be performed on a packet or as a
      consequence of a packet being processed by a router.  A network
      action may affect router state, packet forwarding, or it may
      affect the packet in some other way.

   *  Network Action Indicator (NAI): An indication in the packet that a
      certain network action is to be performed.

   *  Ancillary Data (AD): Data in an MPLS packet associated with a
      given network action that may be used as input to the processing
      of the network action or results from the processing of the
      network action.  Ancillary data may be associated with:

      -  Both control or maintenance information and the data traffic
         carried by the Label Switched Path (LSP).

      -  Only the control or maintenance information.

      -  Only the data traffic carried by the LSP.

   *  In-Stack Data: Ancillary data carried within the MPLS label stack.

   *  Post-Stack Data: Ancillary data carried in a packet between the
      bottom of the MPLS label stack and the first octet of the user
      payload.  This document does not prescribe whether post-stack data
      precedes or follows any other post-stack header such as a Control
      Word or Associated Channel Header (ACH).

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   *  Scope: The set of nodes that should perform a given action.

2.  Requirements 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 BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   Although this document is not a protocol specification, this
   convention is adopted for clarity of description of requirements.

3.  MPLS Network Action Requirements

   This document specifies requirements on MPLS network actions and the
   technology to support them in MPLS, such as the Network Action
   Indicators (NAIs), the associated ancillary data (AD), and the alert
   mechanism to indicate to an LSR that NAIs are present in a packet.

   The requirements are for the behavior of the protocol mechanisms and
   procedures that constitute building blocks out of which indicators
   for network actions and associated ancillary data are constructed.
   It does not specify the detailed actions and processing of any
   network actions or ancillary data by an LSR or LER.

   The size of the ancillary data carried post-stack end-to-end in a
   packet is a matter for agreement between the ingress and egress PEs,
   and is not part of these requirements.  Since in-stack ancillary data
   and per-hop post-stack data need to be parsed and processed by
   transit LSRs along the LSP, requirements on the size of such
   ancillary data are documented in the following sections.

3.1.  General Requirements

   1.   Any MNA and Network Action solution MUST maintain the properties
        of extensibility, flexibility, and efficiency inherent in the
        split between the control plane context and simple data plane
        used in MPLS, and SHOULD describe how this is achieved.

   2.   Any solutions to these requirements MUST be based on and MUST
        NOT restrict the generality of the MPLS architecture [RFC3031],
        [RFC3032] and [RFC5331].

   3.   If extensions to the MPLS data plane are required, they MUST NOT
        be inconsistent with the MPLS architecture [RFC3031], [RFC3032]
        and [RFC5331].

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   4.   Solutions meeting the requirements set out in this document MUST
        be able to coexist with existing MPLS mechanisms.

   5.   Subject to the constraints in these requirements a Network
        Action solution MAY carry MNA information in-stack, post-stack
        or both in-stack and post-stack.

   6.   Solutions MUST NOT require an implementation to support in-stack
        ancillary data, unless the implementation chooses to support a
        network action that uses in-stack ancillary data.

   7.   Solutions MUST NOT require an implementation to support post-
        stack ancillary data, unless the implementation chooses to
        support a network action that uses post-stack ancillary data.

   8.   The design of any MNA solution MUST minimise the amount of
        processing required to parse the label stack at an LSR.

   9.   Solutions MUST minimize any additions to the size of the MPLS
        label stack.

   10.  Solutions that increase the size of the MPLS label stack in a
        way that is not controlled by the ingress LER MUST discuss the
        consequences.

   11.  Solution specifications MUST discuss the ECMP consequences of
        the design.

   12.  The design of any network action solution MUST NOT expose
        information that is not already exposed by the LER to the LSRs.

   13.  The design of any network action MUST NOT expose any information
        that a user of any service using the LSP considers confidential
        [RFC6973] [RFC3552].

   14.  Solution specifications MUST document any new security
        considerations that they introduce.

   15.  An MNA solution MUST allow packets carrying NAI and ancillary
        data (where it exists) to coexist with MPLS packets that do not
        carry this information on the same LSP.

3.2.  Requirements on the MNA Alert Mechanism

   16. An MNA solution MUST define how a node determines whether NAIs
       are present in the packet.

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   17. Special Purpose Labels (SPLs) are a mechanism of last resort, and
       therefore an MNA solution that uses them MUST minimise the number
       of new SPLs that are allocated.

3.3.  Requirements on Network Actions

   18. Is it RECOMENDED that an MNA specification support network
       actions for private use [RFC8126].

   19. Network action specifications MUST specify if the network action
       needs to be processed as a part of the immediate forwarding
       operation and whether packet mis-ordering is allowed to occur as
       a result of the time taken to process the network action.

   20. If a network action solution allows more than one scope for a
       network action, it MUST provide a mechanism to specify the
       precedence of the scopes or any combination of the scopes.

   21. If a Network Action (NA) requires an NAI with in-stack ancillary
       data that needs to be imposed at an LSR on an LSP, then the
       network action solution specification MUST specify how this is
       achieved in all circumstances.

   22. If a network action requires an NAI with post-stack ancillary
       data to be imposed at an LSR on an LSP, then the network action
       solution specification MUST specify how this is achieved in all
       circumstances.

3.4.  Requirements on Network Action Indicators

   23.  Insertion, parsing, processing and disposition of NAIs SHOULD
        make use of existing MPLS data plane operations.

   24.  Without constraining the mechanism, an MNA solution MUST enable
        a node inserting or modifying NAIs to determine if the target of
        the NAI, or any other LSR that may expose the NAI, can accept
        and process a packet containing the NAI.

   25.  An NAI MUST NOT be imposed for delivery to a node unless it is
        known that the node supports processing the NAI.

   26.  The NAI design MUST support setting the scope of network
        actions.

   27.  A given network action specification MUST specify which scope or
        scopes are applicable to the associated NAI.

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   28.  An MNA solution SHOULD support NAIs for both P2P and P2MP paths,
        but a specific NAI MAY be limited by the network action
        specification to only one or the other of these path types if
        there is a clear reason to do so.

   29.  An MNA solution defining data plane mechanisms for NAIs MUST be
        consistent across different control plane protocols.

   30.  An MNA solution MUST allow the in-use control and management
        planes to determine the ability of downstream LSRs to accept
        and/or process a given NAI.

   31.  An MNA solution MUST allow indicators for multiple network
        actions in the same packet.

   32.  An MNA solution MUST NOT require an implementation to process
        all NAIs present in a packet.

   33.  NAIs MUST only be inserted at LSRs that push a label onto the
        stack, e.g. head end LSRs and points of local repair (PLR), but
        can be processed by LSRs along the path of the LSP.

   34.  If an NA requires in-stack ancillary data, the NAI that
        indicates this NA MUST be present in the label stack.

   35.  All NAIs MUST be encoded in a manner consistent with [RFC3031]

   36.  If there is post-stack ancillary data for an NAI that is present
        in the label stack, there MUST be an indication of the presence
        of that AD in the label stack.

   37.  Any processing that removes an NAI from the label stack MUST
        also remove all associated ancillary data from the packet unless
        the ancillary data is required by any remaining NAIs.

   38.  NAIs MUST be allocated through the IANA process specified in the
        MNA solution specification.

   39.  A network action solution specification MUST state where the
        NAIs are to be placed in the packet i.e. in-stack or post-stack.

3.5.  Requirements on Ancillary Data

   40.  Network action specifications MUST specify whether ancillary
        data is required to fulfil the action and whether it is in-stack
        and/or post-stack.

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   41.  Network action specifications MUST specify if in-stack or post-
        stack ancillary data that is already present in the MPLS packet
        MAY be rewritten by an LSR.

   42.  Solutions for in-stack ancillary data MUST be able to coexist
        with and MUST NOT obsolete existing MPLS mechanisms.  Such
        solutions MUST be described in a Standards Track RFC.

   43.  Network action solutions MUST take care to limit the quantity of
        in-stack ancillary data to the minimum amount required.

   44.  A network action solution MAY use post-stack ancillary data
        where the size of that ancillary data if it was inserted into
        the label stack could prevent the coexistence of the network
        action with other in-use MPLS network functions

   45.  The structure of the NAI and any associated ancillary data MUST
        enable skipping of unknown NAIs and any associated AD.

   46.  Any MNA solution specification MUST describe whether it can
        coexist with existing post-stack data mechanisms (e.g., control
        words and G-ACH), and if so how this coexistence operates.

   47.  An MNA solution MUST allow an LER inserting ancillary data to
        determine that each node that needs to process the ancillary
        data can read the required distance into the packet at that node
        (compare with the mechanism in [RFC9088]).

   48.  For scoped in-stack or post-stack ancillary data, any MNA
        solution MUST allow an LER inserting NAIs whose network actions
        make use of that ancillary data to determine if the NAI and
        ancillary data will be processed by LSRs within the scope along
        the path.  Such a solution may need to determine if LSRs along
        the path can process a specific type of AD implied by the NAI at
        the depth in the stack that it will be presented to the LSR.

   49.  A mechanism MUST exist to notify an egress LER of the presence
        of ancillary data so that it can dispose of it appropriately.

   50.  In-stack ancillary data MUST only be inserted in conjunction
        with an operation conforming to [RFC3031].

   51.  Post-stack ancillary data MUST only be inserted in conjunction
        with an operation conforming to [RFC3031].

   52.  Processing of ancillary data below a swapped label MAY include
        rewriting the ancillary data.

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   53.  A network action solution that needs to change the size of the
        ancillary data MUST analyze the implications on packet
        forwarding and specify how these are addressed.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

5.  Security Considerations

   Solutions designed according to the requirements in this document may
   introduce new security considerations to MPLS, whose forwarding plane
   on its own does not provide any built-in security mechanisms
   [RFC5920].

   In particular, such solutions may embed information derived from the
   MPLS payload in the MPLS headers.  This may expose data that a user
   of the MPLS-based service might otherwise assume is opaque to the
   MPLS network.  Furthermore, an LSR may insert information into the
   labelled packet such that the forwarding behavior is no longer purely
   a function of the top label, or other label with forwarding context,
   but instead is the result of a more complex heuristic.  This creates
   an implicit trust relationship between the LSR whose forwarding
   behavior is being changed and the upstream LSR inserting the data
   causing that change.

   Several requirements above address some of these considerations.  The
   MNA framework [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] provides security
   considerations resulting from any extensions to the MPLS
   architecture.  Individual solution specifications meeting the
   requirements in this document MUST address any security
   considerations introduced by the MNA design.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions from Joel
   Halpern, Greg Mirsky, Yingzhen Qu, Haoyu Song, Tarek Saad, Loa
   Andersson, Tony Li, Adrian Farrel, Jie Dong and Bruno Decraene, and
   participants in the MPLS working group who have provided comments.

   The authors also gratefully acknowledge the input of the members of
   the MPLS Open Design Team.

7.  References

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

7.1.  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/rfc/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/rfc/rfc3031>.

   [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/rfc/rfc3032>.

   [RFC5331]  Aggarwal, R., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "MPLS Upstream
              Label Assignment and Context-Specific Label Space",
              RFC 5331, DOI 10.17487/RFC5331, August 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5331>.

   [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/rfc/rfc8126>.

   [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/rfc/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [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-06, 24 January 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              mna-fwk-06>.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
              Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
              Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
              Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-04, 10 February 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
              mna-usecases-04>.

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              MNA Requirements                  April 2024

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3552>.

   [RFC5920]  Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS
              Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5920>.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, DOI 10.17487/RFC6790, November 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6790>.

   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6973>.

   [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/rfc/rfc9088>.

Authors' Addresses

   Matthew Bocci (editor)
   Nokia
   Email: matthew.bocci@nokia.com

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

   John Drake
   Independent
   Email: je_drake@yahoo.com

Bocci, et al.            Expires 7 October 2024                [Page 11]