draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05.txt   rfc7876.txt 
MPLS S. Bryant Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Bryant
Internet-Draft Independent Request for Comments: 7876 Independent
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Category: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: October 9, 2016 S. Soni ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Soni
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
April 7, 2016 July 2016
RFC6374 UDP Return Path UDP Return Path for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks
draft-ietf-mpls-rfc6374-udp-return-path-05
Abstract Abstract
RFC6374 defines a protocol for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for RFC 6374 defines a protocol for Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for
MPLS networks (MPLS-PLDM). This document specifies the procedures to MPLS networks (MPLS-PLDM). This document specifies the procedures to
be used when sending and processing out-of-band MPLS performance be used when sending and processing out-of-band MPLS performance
management responses over an IP/UDP return path. management Responses over an UDP/IP return path.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 9, 2016. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7876.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Requirements Language ...........................................3
3. Solution Overview ...............................................3
3.1. UDP Return Object ..........................................4
4. Theory of Operation .............................................5
4.1. Sending an MPLS-PLDM Query .................................5
4.2. Receiving an MPLS-PLDM Query Request .......................5
4.3. Sending an MPLS-PLDM Response ..............................6
4.4. Receiving an MPLS-PLDM Response ............................7
5. Congestion Considerations .......................................7
6. Manageability Considerations ....................................8
7. Security Considerations .........................................8
8. IANA Considerations .............................................8
9. References ......................................................9
9.1. Normative References .......................................9
9.2. Informative References .....................................9
Acknowledgements ..................................................10
Authors' Addresses ................................................10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document describes how Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for This document describes how MPLS-PLDM [RFC6374] out-of-band Responses
MPLS Networks protocol (MPLS-PLDM) [RFC6374] out-of-band responses
can be delivered to the querier using UDP/IP. can be delivered to the querier using UDP/IP.
The use of UDP may be required to support data path management such The use of UDP may be required to support data-path management such
as passage through firewalls, or to provide the necessary as passage through firewalls or to provide the necessary multiplexing
multiplexing needed in bistatic operation where the querier and the needed in bistatic operation where the querier and the collector are
collector are not co-located and the collector is gathering the not co-located and the collector is gathering the Response
response information for a number of responders. In a highly scaled information for a number of responders. In a highly scaled system,
system some MPLS-PLDM sessions may be off-loaded to a specific node some MPLS-PLDM sessions may be off-loaded to a specific node within
within the distributed system that comprises the Label Switching the distributed system that comprises the Label Switching Router
Router (LSR) as a whole. In such systems the response may arrive via (LSR) as a whole. In such systems, the Response may arrive via any
any interface in the LSR and need to be forwarded internally to the interface in the LSR and needs to be forwarded internally to the
processor tasked with handling the particular MPLS-PLDM measurement. processor tasked with handling the particular MPLS-PLDM measurement.
Currently the MPLS-PLDM protocol does not have any mechanism to Currently, the MPLS-PLDM protocol does not have any mechanism to
deliver the PLDM Response message to a particular node within a deliver the PLDM Response message to a particular node within a
multi-CPU LSR. multi-CPU LSR.
The procedure described in this specification describes how the The procedure described in this specification describes how the
querier requests delivery of the MPLS-PLDM response over IP to a querier requests delivery of the MPLS-PLDM Response over IP to a
dynamic UDP port. It makes no other changes to the protocol and thus dynamic UDP port. It makes no other changes to the protocol and thus
does not affect the case where the response is delivered over a MPLS does not affect the case where the Response is delivered over an MPLS
Associated Channel [RFC5586]. Associated Channel [RFC5586].
2. Requirements Language 2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Solution Overview 3. Solution Overview
This document specifies that, unless configured otherwise, if a UDP This document specifies that, unless configured otherwise, if a UDP
Return Object (URO) is present in a MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder Return Object (URO) is present in an MPLS-PLDM Query, the responder
SHOULD use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to SHOULD use the IP address and UDP port in the URO to reply back to
the querier. The querier MAY include multiple UROs in a MPLS-PLDM the querier. The querier MAY include multiple UROs in an MPLS-PLDM
Query indicating to the responder that an identical responses SHOULD Query indicating to the responder that an identical Response SHOULD
be sent to each address-port pair. A responder MAY be designed or be sent to each address-port pair. A responder MAY be designed or
configured to only transmit a single response, in which case the configured to only transmit a single Response, in which case the
response MUST be sent using the parameters specified in the first URO Response MUST be sent using the parameters specified in the first URO
in the query packet that it is able to use (see Section 4.3). in the Query packet that it is able to use (see Section 4.3).
The procedures defined in this document may be applied to both The procedures defined in this document may be applied to both
unidirectional and bidirectional LSPs. In this document, the term unidirectional and bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs). In
bidirectional LSP includes the co-routed bidirectional LSP defined in this document, the term "bidirectional LSP" includes the co-routed
[RFC3945] and the associated bidirectional LSP that is constructed bidirectional LSP defined in [RFC3945] and the associated
from a pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each direction) that are bidirectional LSP that is constructed from a pair of unidirectional
associated with one another at the LSP's ingress/egress points LSPs (one for each direction) that are associated with one another at
[RFC5654]. The mechanisms defined in this document can apply to both the LSP's ingress/egress points [RFC5654]. The mechanisms defined in
IP/MPLS and to the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)[RFC5654], this document can apply to both IP/MPLS and to the MPLS Transport
[RFC5921] Profile (MPLS-TP) [RFC5654] [RFC5921].
3.1. UDP Return Object 3.1. UDP Return Object
NOTE TO RFC Editor please delete the following paragraph before
publication.
START DELETE
Note to reviewers - We considered a number of approaches to the
design. The first was to use the existing address object and a
separate UDP object, but concern was expressed in the WG that there
may be more than one collector that required this information, and
the combined size of the two objects was large. The next approach
considered by the authors was to create a new object by appending a
UDP port to the existing generalized address object. However, noting
that UDP is only likely to be sent over IP and that it will be a long
time before we design a third major version of IP we can compress the
object either by having separate IPv4 and IPv6 objects, or using the
address length as the discriminator. The object design below uses
the latter approach. The resultant combined UDP port + address
object is thus the same size as the original address object.
END DELETE
The format of the UDP Return Object (URO) is as follows: The format of the UDP Return Object (URO) is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| URO TLV Type | Length={6,18} | UDP-Destination-Port | | URO Type | Length={6,18} | UDP-Destination-Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Address ~ ~ Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Type and Length fields are each 8 bits long. The Length field The Type and Length fields are each 8 bits long. The Length field
indicates the size in bytes of the remainder of the object (i.e. is indicates the size in bytes of the remainder of the object (i.e., it
the size of the address in bytes plus 2). When the address is IPv4 is the size of the address in bytes plus 2). When the address is
the length field is thus 6 and when the address is IPv6 the length IPv4, the Length field is thus 6; when the address is IPv6, the
field is thus 18. The length field therefore acts as both the TLV Length field is thus 18. The Length field therefore acts as both the
parsing parameter and the address family type indicator. TLV parsing parameter and the address family type indicator.
The UDP Return Object Type (URO TLV Type) has a value of 131. The UDP Return Object Type (URO Type) has a value of 131.
The UDP Destination Port is a UDP Destination port as specified in The UDP-Destination-Port is a UDP destination port as specified in
[RFC0768]. [RFC768].
The Address is either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address. The Address is either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address.
The URO MUST NOT appear in a response and MUST be ignored if it is The URO MUST NOT appear in a Response and MUST be ignored if it is
found to be present. found to be present.
To prevent any ambiguity as to which address the responder needs to To prevent any ambiguity as to which address the responder needs to
reply to, an MPLS-PLDM Query message containing a URO MUST NOT reply to, an MPLS-PLDM Query message containing a URO MUST NOT
include an RFC6374 Return Address TLV (TLV 1). Additionally, the include an RFC 6374 Return Address TLV (TLV 1). Additionally, the
method of constructing the return address from the Source Address TLV method of constructing the return address from the Source Address TLV
(TLV 130) described in Section 3.5.2 of RFC6374 MUST NOT be used to (TLV 130) described in Section 3.5.2 of [RFC6374] MUST NOT be used to
construct a Response to a Query message that contains a URO. construct a Response to a Query message that contains a URO.
4. Theory of Operation 4. Theory of Operation
This document defines the UDP Return Object to enable the MPLS-PLDM This document defines the UDP Return Object to enable the MPLS-PLDM
querier to specify the return path for the MPLS-PLDM reply using UDP/ querier to specify the return path for the MPLS-PLDM reply using UDP/
IP encapsulation. IP encapsulation.
When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the When the MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band by setting the
Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM query to "Out-of-band Response Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query to "Out-of-band Response
Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the Requested", and the URO is present, the responder SHOULD send the
response back to querier on the specified destination UDP port at the Response back to querier on the specified destination UDP port at the
specified destination IP address contained in the URO. specified destination IP address contained in the URO.
If the URO is expected but is not present in a query message and an If the URO is expected but is not present in a Query message and an
MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band, the query message MUST MPLS-PLDM Response is requested out-of-band, the Query message MUST
NOT be processed further, and if possible an "Error - Invalid NOT be processed further, and if possible, an "Error - Invalid
Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) SHOULD be send to the querier and Message" ([RFC6374], Section 3.1) SHOULD be sent to the querier and
the operator notified via the management system (see Section 4.2 for the operator notified via the management system (see Section 4.2 for
further details. further details).
4.1. Sending an MPLS-PLDM Query 4.1. Sending an MPLS-PLDM Query
When sending an MPLS-PLDM query message, in addition to the rules and When sending an MPLS-PLDM Query message, in addition to the rules and
procedures defined in [RFC6374]; the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM procedures defined in [RFC6374], the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM
query MUST be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a URO MUST Query MUST be set to "Out-of-band Response Requested", and a URO MUST
be carried in the MPLS-PLDM query message. be carried in the MPLS-PLDM Query message.
If the querier uses the UDP port to de-multiplex the response for If the querier uses the UDP port to de-multiplex the Response for a
different measurement type, there MUST be a different UDP port for different measurement type, there MUST be a different UDP port for
each measurement type (Delay, loss and delay-loss combined). each measurement type (delay, loss, and delay-loss combined).
An implementation MAY use multiple UDP ports for same measurement An implementation MAY use multiple UDP ports for the same measurement
type to direct the response to the correct management process in the type to direct the Response to the correct management process in the
LSR. LSR.
4.2. Receiving an MPLS PLDM Query Request 4.2. Receiving an MPLS-PLDM Query Request
The processing of MPLS-PLDM query messages as defined in [RFC6374] The processing of MPLS-PLDM Query messages as defined in [RFC6374]
applies in this document. In addition, when an MPLS-PLDM query applies in this document. In addition, when an MPLS-PLDM Query
message is received, with the control code of the MPLS-PLDM query set message is received, with the Control Code of the MPLS-PLDM Query set
to "Out-of-band Response Requested" with a URO present, then the to "Out-of-band Response Requested" with a URO present, then the
responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send MPLS-PLDM responder SHOULD use that IP address and UDP port to send an MPLS-
response back to querier. PLDM Response back to the querier.
If an Out-of-band response is requested and the URO is missing, the If an out-of-band Response is requested and the URO is missing, the
query SHOULD be dropped in the case of a unidirectional LSP. If the Query SHOULD be dropped in the case of a unidirectional LSP. If the
TLV is missing on a bidirectional LSP, the control code of the TLV is missing on a bidirectional LSP, the Control Code of the
Response message SHOULD set to 0x1C indicating "Error - Invalid Response message SHOULD set to 0x1C indicating "Error - Invalid
Message" ([RFC6374] Section 3.1) and the response SHOULD be sent over Message" ([RFC6374], Section 3.1), and the Response SHOULD be sent
the reverse LSP. The receipt of such a mal-formed request SHOULD be over the reverse LSP. The receipt of such a malformed request SHOULD
notified to the operator through the management system, taking the be reported to the operator through the management system, with
normal precautions with respect to the prevention of overload of the normal precautions taken in respect to the prevention of overload of
error reporting system. the error-reporting system.
4.3. Sending an MPLS-PLDM Response 4.3. Sending an MPLS-PLDM Response
As specified in [RFC6374] the MPLS-PLDM Response can be sent over As specified in [RFC6374], the MPLS-PLDM Response can be sent either
either the reverse MPLS LSP for a bidirectional LSP or over an IP over the reverse MPLS LSP for a bidirectional LSP or over an IP path.
path. It MUST NOT be sent other than in response to an MPLS-PLDM It MUST NOT be sent other than in Response to an MPLS-PLDM Query
query message. message.
When the requested return path is an IP forwarding path and this When the requested return path is an IP forwarding path and this
method is in use, the destination IP address and UDP port is copied method is in use, the destination IP address and UDP port are copied
from the URO. The source IP address and the source UDP Port of the from the URO. The source IP address and the source UDP port of the
Response packet is left to discretion of the responder subject to the Response packet are left to the discretion of the responder, subject
normal management and security considerations. If the querier has to the normal management and security considerations. If the querier
included URO(s) for only one IP address family and a return path of has included URO(s) for only one IP address family and a return path
that type is not available, then the query message MUST be discarded, of that type is not available, then the Query message MUST be
and the operator SHOULD be informed of the error through the discarded, and the operator SHOULD be informed of the error through
management system using the normal rate limited approach. If the the management system using the normal rate-limited approach. If the
responder is configured to only respond with a single response, and a responder is configured to only respond with a single Response, and a
path using the IP address family in the first URO is not available, path using the IP address family in the first URO is not available,
the responder MAY search the UROs for the first URO specifying a the responder MAY search the UROs for the first URO specifying a
return address family for which it does have a path and use the return address family for which it does have a path and use the
parameters in that URO to respond. If the responder is designed or parameters in that URO to respond. If the responder is designed or
configured not to search for a URO that it can respond to, then the configured not to search for a URO that it can respond to, then the
operator SHOULD be informed of the error through the management operator SHOULD be informed of the error through the management
system using the normal rate limited approach. system using the normal rate-limited approach.
The packet format for the MPLS-PLDM response after the UDP header is The packet format for the MPLS-PLDM Response after the UDP header is
as specified in [RFC6374]. As shown in Figure 1 the Associate as specified in [RFC6374]. As shown in Figure 1, the Associated
Channel Header (ACH) [RFC5586] is not included. The information Channel Header (ACH) [RFC5586] is not included. The information
provided by the ACH is not needed since the correct binding between provided by the ACH is not needed since the correct binding between
the query and response messages is achieved though the UDP Port and the Query and Response messages is achieved through the UDP port and
the session indentifier contained in the RFC6374 message. the session identifier contained in the RFC 6374 message.
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| IP Header | | IP Header |
. Source Address = Responders IP Address | . Source Address = Responders IP Address |
. Destination Address = URO.Address | . Destination Address = URO.Address |
. Protocol = UDP . . Protocol = UDP .
. . . .
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| UDP Header | | UDP Header |
. Source Port = As chosen by Responder . . Source Port = As chosen by Responder .
. Destination Port = URO.UDP-Destination-Port . . Destination Port = URO.UDP-Destination-Port .
. . . .
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
| Message as specified in RFC6374 | | Message as specified in RFC 6374 |
. . . .
+----------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: Response packet Format Figure 1: Response Packet Format
If the return path is an IP path, only one-way delay or one-way loss If the return path is an IP path, only one-way delay or one-way loss
measurement can be carried out. In this case timestamps 3 and 4 MUST measurement can be carried out. In this case, timestamps 3 and 4
be zero as specified in [RFC6374]. MUST be zero as specified in [RFC6374].
4.4. Receiving an MPLS-PLDM Response 4.4. Receiving an MPLS-PLDM Response
If the response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band response If the Response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band Response
was expected, the Response message SHOULD be directed to the was expected, the Response message SHOULD be directed to the
appropriate measurement process as determined by the destination UDP appropriate measurement process as determined by the destination UDP
Port, and processed using the corresponding measurement type port and processed using the corresponding measurement type procedure
procedure specified in F [RFC6374]. specified in [RFC6374].
If the Response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band response If the Response was received over UDP/IP and an out-of-band Response
was not requested, that response SHOULD be dropped and the event was not requested, that Response SHOULD be dropped, and the event
SHOULD be notified to the operator through the management system, SHOULD be reported to the operator through the management system,
taking the normal precautions with respect to the prevention of with normal precautions taken in respect to the prevention of
overload of the error reporting system. overload of the error-reporting system.
5. Congestion Considerations 5. Congestion Considerations
This protocol MUST be run in accordance the guidance provided in This protocol MUST be run in accordance with the guidance provided in
[RFC5405]. As advised in section 3.2.1 of RFC5405, operators that [RFC5405]. As advised in Section 3.1.2 of RFC 5405, operators that
wish to run this protocol at rates in excess of one packet per three wish to run this protocol at rates in excess of one packet per three
seconds need to ensure that the MPLS path being monitored and any IP seconds need to ensure that the MPLS path being monitored and any IP
path that may be used to carry the response are provisioned such that path that may be used to carry the Response are provisioned such that
there is a negligible chance of this protocol causing congestion. there is a negligible chance of this protocol causing congestion.
Additionally, if a significant number of response packets are lost, Additionally, if a significant number of Response packets are lost,
the querier MUST reduce the sending rate to a point where there is a the querier MUST reduce the sending rate to a point where there is a
negligible chance that this protocol is contributing to network negligible chance that this protocol is contributing to network
congestion. The operator should also take precautions that response congestion. The operator should also take precautions that Response
packets do not leak out of the network domain being used and cause packets do not leak out of the network domain being used and cause
congestion elsewhere. If a default IP address is configured by the congestion elsewhere. If a default IP address is configured by the
equipment vendor, this MUST be an address known to contain the equipment vendor, this MUST be an address known to contain the
response packet within the responder, such as the IPv4 localhost Response packet within the responder. A responder receiving a Query
address [RFC6890] or the IPv6 loopback address [RFC4291]. A specifying this as a return address, and not being configured to
responder receiving a query specifying this as a return address, and expect such a return address, SHOULD notify the operator in a
not being configured to expect such a return address*, SHOULD notify suitably rate-limited manner.
the operator in a suitably rate limited manner.
6. Manageability Considerations 6. Manageability Considerations
The manageability considerations described in Section 7 of [RFC6374] The manageability considerations described in Section 7 of [RFC6374]
are applicable to this specification. Additional manageability are applicable to this specification. Additional manageability
considerations are noted within the elements of procedure of this considerations are noted within the elements of procedure in this
document. document.
Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP Nothing in this document precludes the use of a configured UDP/IP
return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to return path in a deployment in which configuration is preferred to
signalling. In these circumstances the URO MAY be omitted from the signaling. In these circumstances, the URO MAY be omitted from the
MPLS-PLDM messages. MPLS-PLDM messages.
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The MPLS-PLDM system is not intended to be deployed on the public The MPLS-PLDM system is not intended to be deployed on the public
Internet. It is intended for deployment in well managed private and Internet. It is intended for deployment in well-managed private and
service provider networks. The security considerations described in service provider networks. The security considerations described in
Section 8 of [RFC6374] are applicable to this specification and the Section 8 of [RFC6374] are applicable to this specification, and
reader's attention is drawn to the last two paragraphs. particular attention should be paid to the last two paragraphs.
Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration Cryptographic measures may be enhanced by the correct configuration
of access control lists and firewalls. of access-control lists and firewalls.
To prevent the use of this protocol as a reflection attack vector, To prevent the use of this protocol as a reflection attack vector,
the operator should ensure that the IP address in the URO addresses a the operator should ensure that the IP address in the URO addresses a
system that is expecting to act as a receiver of PLDM responses. system that is expecting to act as a receiver of PLDM Responses.
There is no additional exposure of information to pervasive There is no additional exposure of information to pervasive
monitoring systems observing LSPs that are being monitored. monitoring systems observing LSPs that are being monitored.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
IANA has made an early allocation of a new Optional TLV type from IANA has assigned a new optional TLV type from the "MPLS Loss/Delay
MPLS Loss/Delay Measurement TLV Object Registry contained within the Measurement TLV Object" registry contained within the "Generic
Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters registry set. IANA is Associated Channel (G-ACh) Parameters" registry set:
requested to modify the description text as shown below.
Code Description Reference
131 UDP Return [This]
9. Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contribution of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
both with Cisco Systems. We thank Loa Andersson, Eric Osborne,
Mustapha Aissaoui, Jeffrey Zhang and Ross Callon for their review
comments.
We thank all who have reviewed this text and provided feedback. Code Description Reference
131 UDP Return [RFC7876]
10. References 9. References
10.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines [RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5405, November 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5405, November 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5405>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5405>.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed., [RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, "MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5586, June 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5586>.
[RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed., [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B., Ed., Brungard, D., Ed., Betts, M., Ed.,
Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS Sprecher, N., and S. Ueno, "Requirements of an MPLS
Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654, Transport Profile", RFC 5654, DOI 10.17487/RFC5654,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>. September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5654>.
[RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay [RFC6374] Frost, D. and S. Bryant, "Packet Loss and Delay
Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374, Measurement for MPLS Networks", RFC 6374,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011, DOI 10.17487/RFC6374, September 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6374>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman, 9.2. Informative References
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau,
L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport
Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5921>.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the contributions of Joseph Chin and Rakesh Gandhi,
both with Cisco Systems. We thank Loa Andersson, Eric Osborne,
Mustapha Aissaoui, Jeffrey Zhang, and Ross Callon for their review
comments.
We thank all who have reviewed this text and provided feedback.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Stewart Bryant Stewart Bryant
Independent Independent
Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com Email: stewart.bryant@gmail.com
Siva Sivabalan Siva Sivabalan
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
 End of changes. 69 change blocks. 
186 lines changed or deleted 170 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/