Network Working Group                                           E. Rosen
Request for Comments: 4182                           Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 3032                                             September 2005
Category: Standards Track


       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS Explicit NULL

Status of This Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

  The label stack encoding for Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
  defines a reserved label value known as "IPv4 Explicit NULL" and a
  reserved label value known as "IPv6 Explicit NULL".  Previously,
  these labels were only legal when they occurred at the bottom of the
  MPLS label stack.  This restriction is now removed, so that these
  label values may legally occur anywhere in the stack.

  This document updates RFC 3032.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................2
  2. Detail of Change ................................................2
  3. Reasons for Change ..............................................3
  4. Deployment Considerations .......................................5
  5. Security Considerations .........................................5
  6. Acknowledgments .................................................5
  7. Normative References ............................................5
  8. Informative References ..........................................5










Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4182       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS  September 2005


1.  Introduction

  RFC 3032 defines a reserved label value known as "IPv4 Explicit NULL"
  and a reserved label value known as "IPv6 Explicit NULL" [RFC3032].
  It states that these label values are only legal at the bottom of the
  MPLS label stack.  However, no reason is given for this restriction.

  It has turned out that in practice there are some situations in which
  it is useful to send MPLS packets that have Explicit NULL occur
  somewhere other than at that bottom of the label stack.  While the
  intended semantics are obvious enough, the fact that such packets are
  gratuitously declared by RFC 3032 to be illegal has made it difficult
  to handle these situations in an interoperable manner.

  This document updates RFC 3032 by removing the unnecessary
  restriction, so that the two aforementioned label values are legal
  anywhere in the label stack.

2.  Detail of Change

  RFC 3032 states on page 4:

  There are several reserved label values:

      i. A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label".  This
         label value is only legal at the bottom of the label stack.
         It indicates that the label stack must be popped, and the
         forwarding of the packet must then be based on the IPv4
         header.

    iii. A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label".  This
         label value is only legal at the bottom of the label stack.
         It indicates that the label stack must be popped, and the
         forwarding of the packet must then be based on the IPv6
         header.

  Paragraph i is hereby changed to read:

      i. A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label".

         An IPv4 Explicit NULL at the top of the label stack means that
         the stack must be popped.

         If the NULL was not the only label on the stack, this will
         cause the label beneath it to rise to the top of the stack.
         The disposition of the packet is based on the label that has
         now risen to the top.




Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4182       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS  September 2005


         If, on the other hand, the NULL was the only label on the
         stack, then the stack is now empty.  The resulting packet is
         treated as an IPv4 packet, and its disposition is based on the
         IPv4 header.

  Paragraph iii is hereby changed to read:

      iii. A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label".

         An IPv6 Explicit NULL at the top of the label stack means that
         the stack must be popped.

         If the NULL was not the only label on the stack, this will
         cause the label beneath it to rise to the top of the stack.
         The disposition of the packet is based on the label that has
         now risen to the top.

         If, on the other hand, the NULL was the only label on the
         stack, then the stack is now empty.  The resulting packet is
         treated as an IPv6 packet, and its disposition is based on the
         IPv6 header.

3.  Reasons for Change

  Restricting Explicit NULL to the bottom of the stack has caused some
  problems in practice.

  With this restriction in place, one should not distribute, to a
  particular label distribution peer, a binding of Explicit NULL to a
  particular Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC), unless the following
  condition (call it "Condition L") holds: all MPLS packets received by
  that peer with an incoming label corresponding to that FEC contain
  only a single label stack entry.  If Explicit NULL is bound to the
  FEC, but Condition L doesn't hold, the peer is being requested to
  create illegal packets.  None of the MPLS specifications say what the
  peer is actually supposed to do in this case.  This situation is made
  more troublesome by the facts that, in practice, Condition L rarely
  holds, and it is not possible, in general, to determine whether it
  holds or not.

  Further, if one is supporting the Pipe Model of RFC 3270 [RFC3270],
  there are good reasons to create label stacks in which Explicit NULL
  is at the top of the label stack, but a non-null label is at the
  bottom.

  RFC 3270 specifies the procedures for MPLS support of Differentiated
  Services.  In particular, it defines a "Pipe Model" in which (quoting
  from RFC 3270, Section 2.6.2):



Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4182       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS  September 2005


   "tunneled packets must convey two meaningful pieces of Diff-Serv
   information:

    - the Diff-Serv information which is meaningful to intermediate
      nodes along the LSP span including the LSP Egress (which we refer
      to as the 'LSP Diff-Serv Information').  This LSP Diff-Serv
      Information is not meaningful beyond the LSP Egress:  Whether
      Traffic Conditioning at intermediate nodes on the LSP span
      affects the LSP Diff-Serv information or not, this updated Diff-
      Serv information is not considered meaningful beyond the LSP
      Egress and is ignored.

    - the Diff-Serv information which is meaningful beyond the LSP
      Egress (which we refer to as the 'Tunneled Diff-Serv
      Information').  This information is to be conveyed by the LSP
      Ingress to the LSP Egress.  This Diff-Serv information is not
      meaningful to the intermediate nodes on the LSP span."

  When the Pipe Model is in use, it is common practice for the LSP
  Egress to bind Explicit Null to the tunnel's FEC.  The intention is
  that the LSP Diff-Serv information will be carried in the EXP bits of
  the Explicit Null label stack entry, and the tunneled Diff-Serv
  information will be carried in whatever is "below" the Explicit Null
  label stack entry, i.e., in the IP header DS bits or in the EXP bits
  of the next entry on the MPLS label stack.

  Naturally, this practice causes a problem if the Pipe Model LSP is
  being used to tunnel MPLS packets (i.e., if Condition L does not
  hold).  With strict adherence to RFCs 3031 and 3036, this practice
  results in an MPLS packet where Explicit NULL is at the top of the
  label stack, even though it is not the only entry in the label stack.
  However, RFC 3032 makes this packet illegal.

  Some implementations simply transmit the illegal packet.  Others try
  to convert it to a legal packet by stripping off the Explicit NULL
  before transmitting it.  However, that breaks the Pipe Model by
  discarding the LSP Diff-Serv information.  It is conceivable that
  there may be an implementation that drops the illegal packet
  entirely; this would also break the Pipe Model, as it would lose not
  only the LSP Diff-Serv information, but the entire packet.

  Of course the LSP egress is not compelled to bind Explicit NULL to
  the tunnel's FEC; an ordinary label could be used instead.  However,
  using Explicit NULL enables the egress to determine immediately
  (i.e., without need for lookup in the Label Information Base) that
  the further forwarding of the packet is to be determined by whatever
  is below the label.  Avoiding this lookup can have favorable
  implications on forwarding performance.



Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4182       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS  September 2005


  Removing the restriction that Explicit Null only occur at the bottom
  of the stack is the simplest way to facilitate the proper operation
  of the Pipe Model.

4.  Deployment Considerations

  Implementations that adhere to this specification will interoperate
  correctly, and will correctly support the Pipe Model.

  Implementations that do not adhere to this specification may not
  interoperate.  In particular, if a router advertises a binding of
  Explicit NULL, and if that router has an upstream LDP peer that will
  not transmit a packet that has multiple label stack entries with
  Explicit Null at top of the stack, then it will not be possible to
  use Explicit NULL to support the Pipe Model until the upstream LDP
  peer is brought into compliance with this specification.

  It is possible that there may be a router implementation, preceding
  this specification, which will discard any received packet with
  multiple label stack entries and a top label value of Explicit Null.
  It is advisable to configure any such routers so that they do not
  advertise any bindings to Explicit Null.

5.  Security Considerations

  This document updates RFC 3032 by allowing Explicit NULL to occur at
  any position in the label stack.  This modification does not impose
  any new security considerations beyond those discussed in RFC 3032.

6.  Acknowledgments

  Thanks to Rahul Aggarwal, Francois LeFaucheur, Yakov Rekhter, and Dan
  Tappan for their helpful comments.

7.  Normative References

  [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
             Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
             Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

8.  Informative References

  [RFC3270]  Le Faucheur, F., Wu, L., Davie, B., Davari, S., Vaananen,
             P., Krishnan, R., Cheval, P., and J. Heinanen, "Multi-
             Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Support of Differentiated
             Services", RFC 3270, May 2002.





Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4182       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS  September 2005


Author's Address

  Eric C. Rosen
  Cisco Systems, Inc.
  1414 Massachusetts Avenue
  Boxborough, MA 01719

  EMail: [email protected]











































Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4182       Removing a Restriction on the use of MPLS  September 2005


Full Copyright Statement

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

  This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
  contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
  retain all their rights.

  This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
  OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
  ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
  INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
  INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
  WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
  Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
  pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
  this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
  might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
  made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
  on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
  found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

  Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
  assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
  attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
  such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
  specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
  http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
  rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

  Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
  Internet Society.







Rosen                       Standards Track                     [Page 7]


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.fnord.one. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.