Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Raza
Request for Comments: 7506 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 4379 N. Akiya
Category: Standards Track Big Switch Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 2015
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Raza
Request for Comments: 7506 Cisco Systems, Inc.
Updates: 4379 N. Akiya
Category: Standards Track Big Switch Networks
ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
April 2015
IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
用于MPLS操作、管理和维护（OAM）的IPv6路由器警报选项
Abstract
摘要
RFC 4379 defines the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute mechanism in which the Router Alert Option (RAO) MUST be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Request messages and may conditionally be set in the IP header of the MPLS Echo Reply messages depending on the Reply Mode used. While a generic "Router shall examine packet" Option Value is used for the IPv4 RAO, there is no generic RAO value defined for IPv6 that can be used. This document allocates a new, generic IPv6 RAO value that can be used by MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) tools, including the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages for MPLS in IPv6 environments. Consequently, it updates RFC 4379.
RFC 4379定义了MPLS标签交换路径（LSP）Ping/Traceroute机制，在该机制中，路由器警报选项（RAO）必须设置在MPLS回送请求消息的IP报头中，并且可以根据使用的回复模式有条件地设置在MPLS回送回复消息的IP报头中。虽然IPv4 RAO使用了通用的“路由器应检查数据包”选项值，但没有为IPv6定义可使用的通用RAO值。本文档分配一个新的通用IPv6 RAO值，该值可由MPLS操作、管理和维护（OAM）工具使用，包括IPv6环境中MPLS的MPLS回显请求和MPLS回显回复消息。因此，它更新了RFC 4379。
The initial motivation to request an IPv6 RAO value for MPLS OAM comes from the MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute. However, this value is applicable to all MPLS OAM and not limited to MPLS LSP Ping/ Traceroute.
为MPLS OAM请求IPv6 RAO值的最初动机来自MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute。但是，该值适用于所有MPLS OAM，不限于MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
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.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
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/rfc7506.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7506.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2015 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
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.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 RAO Value for MPLS OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Updates to RFC 4379 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 RAO Value for MPLS OAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Updates to RFC 4379 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A commonly deployed MPLS OAM tool is specified in [RFC4379], "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", which is used to diagnose MPLS network data planes. This specification, often referred to as "MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute" [RFC4379], requires the use of the Router Alert Option (RAO) in the IP header. For example, Section 4.3 of [RFC4379] states that the IP RAO MUST be set in the IP header of an MPLS Echo Request message. Similarly, Section 4.5 of [RFC4379] states that the IP RAO MUST be set in the IP header of an MPLS Echo Reply message if the Reply Mode in the Echo Request is set to "Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert".
[RFC4379]“检测多协议标签交换（MPLS）数据平面故障”中规定了一种常用的MPLS OAM工具，用于诊断MPLS网络数据平面。该规范通常称为“MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute”[RFC4379]，要求在IP报头中使用路由器警报选项（RAO）。例如，[RFC4379]第4.3节规定，必须在MPLS回送请求消息的IP报头中设置IP RAO。类似地，[RFC4379]第4.5节规定，如果回送请求中的回复模式设置为“通过IPv4/IPv6 UDP数据包回复路由器警报”，则必须在MPLS回送回复消息的IP报头中设置IP RAO。
[RFC2113] defines a generic Option Value 0x0 for IPv4 RAO that is used in LSP Ping and LSP Traceroute for MPLS in IPv4 environments. This IPv4 RAO value of 0x0 is assigned to "Router shall examine packet". However, currently there is no generic IPV6 RAO value defined that can be used in LSP Ping and LSP Traceroute for MPLS in
[RFC2113]为IPv4 RAO定义一个通用选项值0x0，该值用于IPv4环境中MPLS的LSP Ping和LSP跟踪路由。此IPv4 RAO值0x0分配给“路由器应检查数据包”。但是，目前还没有定义可用于中MPLS的LSP Ping和LSP跟踪路由的通用IPV6 RAO值
IPv6 environments. Specifically, [RFC2711] defined the Router Alert for a general IPv6 purpose but required the Value field in the RAO to indicate a specific reason for using the RAO. Because there is no defined value for MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute use or for general use, it is not possible for MPLS OAM tools to use the IPv6 Router Alert mechanism.
IPv6环境。具体而言，[RFC2711]为一般IPv6目的定义了路由器警报，但要求RAO中的值字段指示使用RAO的特定原因。由于没有为MPLS LSP Ping/Traceroute使用或一般使用定义值，因此MPLS OAM工具不可能使用IPv6路由器警报机制。
As vendors are starting to implement MPLS on the IPv6 control plane (e.g., [LDP-IPV6]), there is a need to define and allocate such an Option Value for IPv6 in order to comply with [RFC4379]. This document defines a new IPv6 RAO value that can be used by MPLS OAM tools, including the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply messages for MPLS in IPv6 environments.
由于供应商开始在IPv6控制平面（例如[LDP-IPv6]）上实施MPLS，因此需要为IPv6定义和分配此类选项值，以符合[RFC4379]。本文档定义了可由MPLS OAM工具使用的新IPv6 RAO值，包括IPv6环境中MPLS的MPLS回显请求和MPLS回显回复消息。
This document closes the gap discussed in the third paragraph of Section 3.4.2 in [RFC7439].
本文件填补了[RFC7439]第3.4.2节第三段中讨论的空白。
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].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This document defines a new Option Value (69) for the IPv6 RAO to alert transit routers to examine the packet more closely for MPLS OAM purposes. This Option Value is used by any MPLS OAM application that requires their packets to be examined by a transit router.
本文档为IPv6 RAO定义了一个新的选项值（69），用于提醒传输路由器更仔细地检查数据包，以实现MPLS OAM目的。此选项值由任何MPLS OAM应用程序使用，该应用程序要求传输路由器检查其数据包。
In the scope of this document, this Option Value will be used by the MPLS Echo Request and MPLS Echo Reply for its IPv6 messages, as is required by [RFC4379].
在本文档的范围内，此选项值将由MPLS回显请求和MPLS回显回复用于其IPv6消息，如[RFC4379]所要求。
[RFC4379] specifies the use of the RAO in the IP header. Sections 4.3 and 4.5 of [RFC4379] are updated as follows:
[RFC4379]指定在IP报头中使用RAO。[RFC4379]第4.3节和第4.5节更新如下：
For every time in which the "Router Alert IP Option" is used, the following text is appended:
每次使用“路由器警报IP选项”时，都会附加以下文本：
In case of an IPv4 header, the generic IPv4 RAO value 0x0 [RFC2113] SHOULD be used. In case of an IPv6 header, the IPv6 RAO value (69) allocated through this document for MPLS OAM MUST be used.
对于IPv4报头，应使用通用IPv4 RAO值0x0[RFC2113]。对于IPv6报头，必须使用通过本文档为MPLS OAM分配的IPv6 RAO值（69）。
This document defines a new value (69) for the IPv6 RAO to alert transit routers to examine the packet more closely for MPLS OAM purposes. IANA has assigned a new code point under its "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values" registry defined by [RFC2711], updated by [RFC5350], and maintained in [IANA-IPv6-RAO]. The new code point is as follows:
本文档为IPv6 RAO定义了一个新值（69），用于提醒传输路由器更仔细地检查数据包，以实现MPLS OAM目的。IANA已在其“IPv6路由器警报选项值”注册表下分配了一个新的代码点，该注册表由[RFC2711]定义，由[RFC5350]更新，并在[IANA-IPv6-RAO]中维护。新的代码点如下：
Value Description Reference
----- ------------------------------- ---------------
69 MPLS OAM RFC 7506
Value Description Reference
----- ------------------------------- ---------------
69 MPLS OAM RFC 7506
This document introduces no new security concerns in addition to what have already been captured in [RFC4379] and [RFC6398], the latter of which expands the security considerations of [RFC2113] and [RFC2711].
除了[RFC4379]和[RFC6398]中已经包含的内容外，本文件没有引入新的安全问题，后者扩展了[RFC2113]和[RFC2711]中的安全注意事项。
IPv6 packets containing the MPLS OAM RAO are encapsulated with an MPLS header and are not expected to be inspected by every label switched hop within an MPLS LSP. Consequently, this value of the RAO will be processed by the appropriate router and is not subject to the problem of being ignored, as described in Section 2.2 of [RFC7045].
包含MPLS OAM RAO的IPv6数据包使用MPLS报头进行封装，不希望MPLS LSP中的每个标签交换跳都进行检查。因此，如[RFC7045]第2.2节所述，RAO的该值将由适当的路由器处理，不存在被忽略的问题。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option", RFC 2711, October 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.
[RFC2711]帕特里奇，C.和A.杰克逊，“IPv6路由器警报选项”，RFC27111999年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.
[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC4379]Kompella，K.和G.Swallow，“检测多协议标签交换（MPLS）数据平面故障”，RFC 4379，2006年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.
[RFC5350] Manner, J. and A. McDonald, "IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options", RFC 5350, September 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5350>.
[RFC5350]Way，J.和A.McDonald，“IPv4和IPv6路由器警报选项的IANA注意事项”，RFC 53502008年9月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5350>.
[RFC6398] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, October 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.
[RFC6398]Le Faucheur，F.，Ed.“IP路由器警报注意事项和使用”，BCP 168，RFC 6398，2011年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.
[IANA-IPv6-RAO] IANA, "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values>.
[IANA-IPv6-RAO]IANA，“IPv6路由器警报选项值”<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-values>.
[LDP-IPV6] Asati, R., Pignataro, C., Raza, K., Manral, V., and R. Papneja, "Updates to LDP for IPv6", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-17, February 2015.
[LDP-IPV6]Asati，R.，Pignataro，C.，Raza，K.，Manral，V.，和R.Papneja，“IPV6的LDP更新”，正在进行的工作，草案-ietf-mpls-LDP-IPV6-172015年2月。
[RFC2113] Katz, D., "IP Router Alert Option", RFC 2113, February 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2113>.
[RFC2113]Katz，D.，“IP路由器警报选项”，RFC 21131997年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2113>.
[RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, December 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7045]Carpenter，B.和S.Jiang，“IPv6扩展头的传输和处理”，RFC 70452013年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.
[RFC7439] George, W., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-Only MPLS Networks", RFC 7439, January 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439>.
[RFC7439]George，W.，Ed.和C.Pignataro，Ed.，“仅运行IPv6 MPLS网络的差距分析”，RFC 7439，2015年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7439>.
Acknowledgements
致谢
The authors would like to thank George Swallow, Ole Troan, Bob Hinden, Faisal Iqbal, Mathew Janelle, and Gregory Mirsky for their useful input.
作者要感谢乔治·斯沃恩、奥勒·特隆、鲍勃·欣登、费萨尔·伊克巴尔、马修·珍妮尔和格雷戈里·米尔斯基的有用意见。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Kamran Raza Cisco Systems, Inc. 2000 Innovation Drive Kanata, ON K2K-3E8 Canada
Kamran Raza Cisco Systems，Inc.位于加拿大K2K-3E8卡纳塔创新大道2000号
EMail: skraza@cisco.com
EMail: skraza@cisco.com
Nobo Akiya Big Switch Networks
Nobo Akiya大交换网络
EMail: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
EMail: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com
Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems, Inc. 7200-12 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 United States
Carlos Pignataro Cisco Systems，Inc.美国北卡罗来纳州Kit Creek Road研究三角公园7200-12号，邮编：27709
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com