draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-06.txt
	MPLS Working Group R. Bonica		MPLS Working Group R. Bonica
	Internet-Draft Juniper Networks		Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
	Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei		Intended status: Standards Track I. Minei
	Expires: April 4, 2016 Google, Inc.		Expires: May 4, 2016 Google, Inc.
	M. Conn		M. Conn
	D. Pacella		D. Pacella
	L. Tomotaki		L. Tomotaki
	Verizon		Verizon
	October 2, 2015		November 1, 2015
	LSP Self-Ping		LSP Self-Ping
	draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-05		draft-ietf-mpls-self-ping-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can		When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
	receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed		receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
	on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the		on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
	ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives		ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
	a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through		a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
	the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream		the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
	nodes, traffic can be lost.		nodes, traffic can be lost.
	skipping to change at page 2, line 15		skipping to change at page 2, line 15
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 46		skipping to change at page 2, line 46
	3. The LSP Self-ping Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. The LSP Self-ping Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5. Bidirectional LSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Bidirectional LSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	Appendix A. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		Appendix A. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to		Ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to
	establish MPLS Label Switched Paths. The following paragraphs		establish MPLS Label Switched Paths. The following paragraphs
	describe RSVP-TE procedures.		describe RSVP-TE procedures.
	The ingress LSR calculates a path between itself and an egress LSR.		The ingress LSR calculates a path between itself and an egress LSR.
	The calculated path can be either strictly or loosely routed. Having		The calculated path can be either strictly or loosely routed. Having
	skipping to change at page 8, line 40		skipping to change at page 8, line 40
	6. IANA Considerations		6. IANA Considerations
	IANA has assigned UDP Port Number 8503 [IANA.PORTS] for use by LSP		IANA has assigned UDP Port Number 8503 [IANA.PORTS] for use by LSP
	Self-ping.		Self-ping.
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	LSP Self-ping messages are easily forged. Therefore, an attacker can		LSP Self-ping messages are easily forged. Therefore, an attacker can
	send the ingress LSR a forged LSP Self-ping message, causing the		send the ingress LSR a forged LSP Self-ping message, causing the
	ingress LSR to terminate the LSP Self-ping session prematurely. In		ingress LSR to terminate the LSP Self-ping session prematurely. In
	order to mitigate these threats, implementations SHOULD NOT assign		order to mitigate these threats, operators SHOULD filter LSP Self-
	Session-ID's in a predictable manner. Furthermore, operators SHOULD		ping packets at the edges of the MPLS signaling domain. Furthermore,
	filter LSP Self-ping packets at network ingress points.		implementations SHOULD NOT assign Session-ID's in a predictable
			manner. In order to avoid predictablity, imlementations can leverage
			a Cryptographically Secure Pseudo-randomn Number Generator (CSPRNG)
			[NIST-CSPRNG]
	8. Contributors		8. Contributors
	The following individuals contributed significantly to this document:		The following individuals contributed significantly to this document:
	Mark Wygant		Mark Wygant
	Verizon		Verizon
	mark.wygant@verizon.com		mark.wygant@verizon.com
	Ravi Torvi		Ravi Torvi
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	rtorvi@juniper.net		rtorvi@juniper.net
	9. Acknowledgements		9. Acknowledgements
	skipping to change at page 10, line 35		skipping to change at page 10, line 35
	Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection		Networks, "Seamless Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
	(S-BFD)", draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03 (work in		(S-BFD)", draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base-03 (work in
	progress), April 2014.		progress), April 2014.
	[IANA.PORTS]		[IANA.PORTS]
	IANA, "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number		IANA, "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
	Registry", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/		Registry", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
	service-names-port-numbers/		service-names-port-numbers/
	service-names-port-numbers.txt>.		service-names-port-numbers.txt>.
			[NIST-CSPRNG]
			"NIST Special Publication 800-90A, Recommendation for
			Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit
			Generators", January 2012.
	[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration		[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
	Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,		Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
	[RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to		[RFC6383] Shiomoto, K. and A. Farrel, "Advice on When It Is Safe to
	Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established		Start Sending Data on Label Switched Paths Established
	Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, DOI 10.17487/RFC6383, September		Using RSVP-TE", RFC 6383, DOI 10.17487/RFC6383, September
	2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6383>.		2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6383>.
End of changes. 9 change blocks.
	9 lines changed or deleted		17 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/