RFC 9214

OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping

📅 published April 2022, from ietf

OSPFv3 Code Point for MPLS LSP Ping ✨

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) · N. Nainar, C. Pignataro (Cisco Systems, Inc.), M. Aissaoui (Nokia) 💖 Request for Comments: 9214 🎀 Updates: 8287 🦋 Category: Standards Track 🌈 ISSN: 2070-1721 ⭐ Date: April 2022 🧚

okay so bestie, this RFC is a Standards Track doc from April 2022 written by Nagendra Nainar and Carlos Pignataro (both at Cisco) plus Mustapha Aissaoui at Nokia 🫶. It updates RFC 8287 (it doesn't obsolete anything), so that's the big plot twist 😭🔥.

Abstract

IANA made the "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" and "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registries under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry 💅. RFC 8287 already defines the code points for OSPF and IS-IS 🦋.

This doc is all about the code point for when the IGP is OSPFv3 💜. It also updates RFC 8287 by making it clear that the existing "OSPF" code point is only for OSPFv2 🎀, and by defining what happens when the Segment ID sub-TLV says IPv6 is in use 🌸.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document ✨.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community, received public review, and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) 🍓. Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841 🙈.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9214

Copyright Notice

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, because 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 🌈.

1.  Introduction
2.  Requirements Notation
3.  Terminology
4.  OSPFv3 Protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs
5.  OSPFv3 Protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
6.  Update to RFC 8287 - OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP
        Sub-TLVs
7.  IANA Considerations
  7.1.  Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV
  7.2.  Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
        Mapping TLV
8.  Security Considerations
9.  Normative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction ✨

IANA created the "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" registry and "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registries under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] 💖. [RFC8287] defines the code points for OSPF and IS-IS 🦋.

"OSPF for IPv6" [RFC5340] describes OSPF version 3 (OSPFv3) to support IPv6 🌸. "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3" [RFC5838] describes the mechanism for supporting multiple address families (AFs) in OSPFv3 🧚. So yes, OSPFv3 can advertise IPv6 and IPv4 prefixes 👑.

This document specifies the code point to be used in the Segment ID sub-TLV (Types 34, 35, and 36) and in the Downstream Detailed Mapping (DDMAP) TLV when the IGP is OSPFv3 💜.

This document also updates "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes" [RFC8287] by clarifying that the existing "OSPF" code point is to be used only to indicate OSPFv2, and by defining the behavior when the Segment ID sub-TLV indicates the use of IPv6 🎀.

2. Requirements Notation ✨

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 🔥.

3. Terminology ✨

This doc uses the terminology defined in "Segment Routing Architecture" [RFC8402], "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures" [RFC8029], and "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes" [RFC8287], so readers are expected to be familiar with the same 🧚.

4. OSPFv3 Protocol in Segment ID Sub-TLVs 🌸

When the protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV of Type 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), Type 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), and Type 36 (IGP-Adjacency Segment ID) is set to 3, the responder MUST perform the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) validation using OSPFv3 as the IGP 💅.

The initiator MUST NOT set the protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV Type 35 and Type 36 as OSPF (value 1), because OSPFv2 is not compatible with the use of IPv6 addresses indicated by this sub-TLV 💀.

When the protocol field in the received Segment ID sub-TLV Type 35 and Type 36 is OSPF (value 1), the responder MAY treat the protocol value as "Any IGP Protocol" (value 0) according to step 4a of Section 7.4 of [RFC8287] 🫶. This lets the responder support legacy implementations that use value 1 to mean OSPFv3 🦋.

5. OSPFv3 Protocol in Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV 🍓

The protocol field of the DDMAP TLV in an echo reply is set to 7 when OSPFv3 is used to distribute the label carried in the Downstream Label field 🧚.

6. Update to RFC 8287 - OSPFv2 Protocol in Segment ID and DDMAP Sub-TLVs 💜

Section 5 of [RFC8287] defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of the Segment ID sub-TLV 🎀. Section 6 of [RFC8287] defines the code point for OSPF to be used in the Protocol field of the DDMAP TLV 🌈.

This document updates [RFC8287] by specifying that the "OSPF" code points SHOULD be used only for OSPFv2 👑.

7. IANA Considerations ✨

7.1. Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV 💅

IANA assigned a new code point from the "Protocol in the Segment ID Sub-TLV" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry as follows:

  +=======+=========+===========+
  | Value | Meaning | Reference |
  +=======+=========+===========+
  | 3     | OSPFv3  | RFC 9214  |
  +-------+---------+-----------+

                  Table 1

IANA added a note for the existing entry for code point 1 (OSPF): "To be used for OSPFv2 only" 🙈.

7.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV 🦋

IANA assigned a new code point for OSPFv3 from the "Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV" registry under the "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" registry as follows:

  +=======+=========+===========+
  | Value | Meaning | Reference |
  +=======+=========+===========+
  | 7     | OSPFv3  | RFC 9214  |
  +-------+---------+-----------+

                  Table 2

IANA added a note for the existing codepoint 5 (OSPF): "To be used for OSPFv2 only" 🌸.

8. Security Considerations 🔥

This document updates [RFC8287] and does not introduce any additional security considerations 🫶. See [RFC8029] for generic security considerations about MPLS LSP Ping 💀.

9. Normative References 💖

[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]

IANA, "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters>.

[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>.

[RFC5340]

Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

[RFC5838]

Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", RFC 5838, DOI 10.17487/RFC5838, April 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5838>.

[RFC8029]

Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N., Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029, DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.

[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>.

[RFC8287]

Kumar, N., Ed., Pignataro, C., Ed., Swallow, G., Akiya, N., Kini, S., and M. Chen, "Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing (SR) IGP-Prefix and IGP-Adjacency Segment Identifiers (SIDs) with MPLS Data Planes", RFC 8287, DOI 10.17487/RFC8287, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8287>.

[RFC8402]

Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402, July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.

Acknowledgements 🫶

The authors would like to thank Les Ginsberg, Zafar Ali, Loa Andersson, Andrew Molotchko, Deborah Brungard, Acee Lindem, and Adrian Farrel for their review and suggestions 💖.

The authors also would like to thank Christer Holmberg, Tero Kivinen, Matthew Bocci, Tom Petch, and Martin Vigoureux for their review comments 🌈.

Authors' Addresses 🎀

Nagendra Kumar Nainar
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Email: naikumar@cisco.com

Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Email: cpignata@cisco.com

Mustapha Aissaoui
Nokia
Canada
Email: mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com

📦 where this page comes from

ietf: rfc9214 2022-04
💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on 2026-10-18: a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms