💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc7026.gmi captured on 2022-01-08 at 21:48:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Updates:
Keywords: ACH, G-ACh, Pseudowire, PW, MPLS-TP
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Farrel
Request for Comments: 7026 Juniper Networks
Updates: 5586 S. Bryant
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
ISSN: 2070-1721 September 2013
Retiring TLVs from the Associated Channel Header
of the MPLS Generic Associated Channel
Abstract
The MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh) is a generalization of
the applicability of the pseudowire (PW) Associated Channel Header
(ACH). RFC 5586 defines the concept of TLV constructs that can be
carried in messages on the G-ACh by placing them in the ACH between
the fixed header fields and the G-ACh message. These TLVs are called
ACH TLVs
No Associated Channel Type yet defined uses an ACH TLV. Furthermore,
it is believed that handling TLVs in hardware introduces significant
problems to the fast path, and since G-ACh messages are intended to
be processed substantially in hardware, the use of ACH TLVs is
undesirable.
This document updates RFC 5586 by retiring ACH TLVs and removing the
associated registry.
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. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further
information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
RFC 5741.
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/rfc7026.
Farrel & Bryant Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7026 Retiring ACH TLVs September 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
(http://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 and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction and Scope
RFC 4385 [RFC4385] says that if the first nibble of a PW packet
carried over an MPLS network has a value of 1, then the packet starts
with a specific header format called the Pseudowire Associated
Channel Header (PWACH) or more generally known as the ACH. This
mechanism creates an Associated Channel that is a message channel
associated with a specific pseudowire (PW).
The applicability of the ACH is generalized in RFC 5586 [RFC5586] to
define the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). This creates a
common encapsulation header for control channel messages associated
with MPLS Sections, Label Switching Paths (LSPs), and PWs.
As part of making the ACH fully generic, RFC 5586 defines ACH TLV
constructs. According to RFC 5586:
In some applications of the generalized associated control channel,
it is necessary to include one or more ACH TLVs to provide
additional context information to the G-ACh packet.
RFC 5586 goes on to say:
If the G-ACh message MAY be preceded by one or more ACH TLVs, then
this MUST be explicitly specified in the definition of an ACH
Channel Type.
However, at the time of writing, of the 18 ACH Channel Types defined,
none allows the use of ACH TLVs [IANA-ACH]. At the time of writing,
there are no unexpired Internet-Drafts that utilize ACH TLVs.
Farrel & Bryant Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7026 Retiring ACH TLVs September 2013
Furthermore, G-ACh packets are intended to be substantially processed
in hardware; however, processing TLVs in hardware can be difficult
because of the unpredictable formats and lengths that they introduce
to the normal ACH format.
This document states that ACH TLVs, as specified in RFC 5586, are not
useful and might be harmful. It updates RFC 5586 by deprecating the
ACH TLV and updating the associated IANA registries as described in
Section 4 of this document. This document makes no comment about the
use of TLVs in other places. In particular, proposals to use TLVs
within ACH messages or as an appendage to ACH messages, are not in
scope of this document.
1.1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Update to RFC 5586
Section 3 of RFC 5586 is deleted.
References to ACH TLVs in Section 4 of RFC 5586 should also be
disregarded. Note that the text in Section 4 currently uses phrases
like "ACH TLV(s), if present" so, with the removal of Section 3 that
used to define ACH TLVs, they will not be present.
3. Implication for the ACH
A G-ACh message MUST NOT be preceded by an ACH TLV.
4. IANA Considerations
This document details two changes to the IANA registries.
4.1. Associated Channel Header TLV Registry
The "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)" registry has a subregistry called
the "Associated Channel Header TLV Registry". IANA has entirely
deleted this subregistry but has left a tombstone record in the top-
level list of registries that says:
Associated Channel Header TLV Registry (DELETED)
Reference
[RFC5586] [RFC7026]
Farrel & Bryant Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7026 Retiring ACH TLVs September 2013
4.2. Pseudowire Associated Channel Types Registry
The "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)" registry has a subregistry
called the "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types" registry. This
subregistry previously included a column marked "TLV Follows".
IANA has entirely deleted this column leaving no record.
5. Manageability Considerations
This document will have no impact on network or device
manageability because there are no ACH Types that allow the use of
TLVs. The document removes a feature that might have been used to
enhance management messages, and especially Operations, Management,
and Administration (OAM) messages. However, given the considerable
experience in defining MPLS OAM messages in the last few years, it
would appear that this feature is not useful.
It is possible that packet sniffers that have already been
implemented will look for ACH TLVs. The deletion of the construct
will not have a negative impact.
6. Security Considerations
Deleting the ACH TLV has a marginal positive effect on security
because it removes a feature that might have been used as an attack
vector to carry false information or to bloat G-ACh messages.
On the other hand, it had been suggested that the ACH TLV could
have been used to carry security parameters to secure the messages
on the G-ACh in a generic way. However, no mechanisms have been
proposed at the time of writing, and it has generally been
considered that it is the responsibility of the specification that
defines G-ACh messages to consider the security requirements of
those messages that may be different for the different
applications.
Otherwise, this document has no implications for security.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Eric Osborne, Thomas Morin, Lizhong Jin, Greg Mirsky, Jia
He, and Pearl Liang for suggestions to improve the text.
Farrel & Bryant Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7026 Retiring ACH TLVs September 2013
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
[RFC5586] Bocci, M., Ed., Vigoureux, M., Ed., and S. Bryant, Ed.,
"MPLS Generic Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[IANA-ACH] "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types", IANA,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pwe3-parameters>
Authors' Addresses
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Stewart Bryant
Cisco Systems
EMail: stbryant@cisco.com
Farrel & Bryant Standards Track [Page 5]