MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-08
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jaganbabu Rajamanickam , Rakesh Gandhi , Royi Zigler , Haoyu Song , Kireeti Kompella | ||
| Last updated | 2024-08-30 (Latest revision 2024-06-17) | ||
| Replaces | draft-jags-mpls-mna-hdr | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART Telechat review
(of
-18)
by Brian Trammell
Ready w/issues
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| Document shepherd | Tarek Saad | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | tsaad@cisco.com |
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-08
MPLS Working Group J. Rajamanickam, Ed.
Internet-Draft R. Gandhi, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: 3 March 2025 R. Zigler
Broadcom
H. Song
Futurewei Technologies
K. Kompella
Juniper Networks
30 August 2024
MPLS Network Action (MNA) Sub-Stack Solution
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-08
Abstract
This document defines the MPLS Network Action (MNA) sub-stack
solution for carrying Network Actions and Ancillary Data in the label
stack. MPLS Network Actions can be used to influence packet
forwarding decisions, carry additional Operations, Administration,
and Maintenance (OAM) information in the MPLS packet or perform user-
defined operations. This solution document specifies In-stack
network action and In-stack data (ISD) specific requirements found in
"Requirements for MPLS Network Actions". This document follows the
architectural framework for the MPLS Network Actions (MNA)
technologies specified in "MPLS Network Actions (MNA) Framework".
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 March 2025.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 (https://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 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Label Stack Entry Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. LSE Format A: The MNA Sub-Stack Indicator . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. LSE Format B: The initial opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. LSE Format C: Subsequent opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. LSE Format D: Additional Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. The MNA Sub-Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Unknown Network Action Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Special Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. bSPL Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.2. Flag-Based NAIs without AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. No-Operation Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.4. Extension Opcode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. NAS placement in the Label Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Actions when Pushing Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Node Capability Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Processing the Network Action Sub-Stack . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Encapsulating Node Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Transit Node Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.3. Penultimate Node Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.4. Egress Node Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Network Action Indicator Opcode Definition . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
12.1. University of Tuebingen Implementation . . . . . . . . . 17
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.1. MNA bSPL Label . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.2. MPLS Network Actions Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14.3. Network Action Flags Without Ancillary Data . . . . . . 18
14.4. Network Action Opcodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
15. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1. Network Action Encoding Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1.1. Network Action Flags without AD . . . . . . . . . . 20
15.1.2. Network Action Opcode with AD . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15.1.3. Network Action Opcode with more AD with Format-B . . 22
15.1.4. Network Action Opcode with more AD with Format C . . 22
15.2. Network Action Processing Order . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
15.2.1. Network Action Processing Order . . . . . . . . . . 23
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
[RFC3032] defines the encoding of the MPLS label stack, the basic
structure used to define a forwarding path. Forthcoming applications
require MPLS packets to perform special network actions and carry
optional Ancillary Data (AD) that can affect the packet forwarding
decision or trigger Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
logging, for example. Ancillary Data can be used to carry additional
information, such as a network slice identifier or an entropy value
for load-balancing. Several MNA applications are described in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]. User-defined network actions allow
new, local actions to be defined.
Network actions can be encoded with or without Ancillary Data (AD),
either in the label stack or after the label stack. This solution
document specifies In-stack network action and In-stack data (ISD)
specific requirements found in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements].
This document defines the syntax and semantics of network actions and
ancillary data encoded in an MPLS Label Stack. In-stack actions and
ancillary data are contained in a Network Action Sub-Stack (NAS),
which is recognized by a new base Special Purpose Label (bSPL). This
document follows the framework specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk].
2. Conventions Used in This Document
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
2.1. Requirements Language
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] [RFC8174]
when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
2.2. Abbreviations
The terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] and
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements] is used in this document.
+============+===================+==================================+
|Abbreviation| Meaning | Reference |
+============+===================+==================================+
|AD | Ancillary Data | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|bSPL | Base Special | [RFC9017] |
| | Purpose Label | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|BOS | Bottom Of Stack | [RFC3032] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|HBH | Hop-By-Hop Scope | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|I2E | Ingress-To-Egress | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] |
| | Scope | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|IHS | I2E, HBH, or | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk], This |
| | Select Scope | document |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|ISD | In-stack Data | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|LSE | Label Stack Entry | [RFC3032] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|MNA | MPLS Network | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] |
| | Actions | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|NAI | Network Action | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements] |
| | Indicator | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|NAL | Network Action | This document |
| | Length | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|NAS | Network Action | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] |
| | Sub-Stack | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|NASI | Network Action | This document |
| | Sub-Stack | |
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
| | Indicator | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|NASL | Network Action | This document |
| | Sub-Stack Length | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|OAM | Operations, | [RFC6291] |
| | Administration, | |
| | and Maintenance | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|RLD | Readable Label | [I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk] |
| | Depth | |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|TC | Traffic Class | [RFC5462] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
|TTL | Time To Live | [RFC3032] |
+------------+-------------------+----------------------------------+
Table 1: Abbreviations
3. Overview
The MPLS Network Action Sub-Stack (NAS) is a set of Label Stack
Entries (LSEs) that appear as part of an MPLS Label Stack and serve
to encode information about the network actions that should be
invoked for the packet. Multiple NASes may appear in a label stack.
This document describes how network actions and their optional
ancillary data are encoded as part of an NAS as a stack of LSEs.
Mechanisms that allow sharing of ancillary data AD between multiple
network actions encoded in the same NAS can be described in other
documents and do not rely on any explicit provision in the encodings
described in this document.
4. Label Stack Entry Formats
The NAS uses a variety of different formats of LSEs for different
purposes. This section describes the syntax of the various formats
while the overall structure of the NAS and the semantics of the
various LSEs are described in the sections below.
4.1. LSE Format A: The MNA Sub-Stack Indicator
LSE Format A is an LSE as described in [RFC3032] and [RFC5462]. The
label value is an IANA-assigned value (TBA) for the MNA bSPL label
from the "Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry to
indicate the presence of MNA in the packet and the beginning an MNA
Sub-Stack in the label stack.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MNA-Label=bSPL (TBA) | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: LSE Format A: The MNA Sub-Stack Indicator
* S (1 bit) : The Bottom of Stack [RFC3032]. MUST be set to 0 on
transmitted packets. If a packet is received with S bit set to 1,
then the packet MUST be dropped.
4.2. LSE Format B: The initial opcode
LSE Format B is used to encode the first opcode in the NAS, plus a
number of other fields about the NAS. This LSE cannot carry more
than 13 bits of data.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode | Data |R|IHS|S|U| NASL | NAL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LSE Format B: The initial opcode
* Opcode (7 bits) : The operation code for this LSE. See
Section 5.1.
* Data (13 bits) : Opcode-specific data.
* R (1 bit) : Reserved bit. This MUST be transmitted as zero and
ignored upon receipt.
* IHS (2 bits) : The scope of the sub-stack. See Section 5.3.
* S (1 bit) : The Bottom of Stack [RFC3032]. If NASL value is non-
zero, then S bit MUST be 0. If a packet is received with S bit
set to 1 and a non-zero NASL value, then the packet MUST be
dropped. The encapsulating node MUST ensure that S bit is set to
1 only in the Last LSE.
* U (1 bit): Unknown Network Action Handling. See Section 5.4.
* NASL (4 bits) : The Network Action Sub-Stack Length (NASL). The
number of additional LSEs in the sub-stack, not including the
leading Format A LSE and the Format B LSE.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
* NAL (3 bits): Network Action Length. The number of LSEs of
additional data, encoded in LSE Format D (Section 4.4) following
this LSE. The NAL value MUST be less than or equal to the NASL
value in Format B, if not the packet MUST be dropped.
NOTE: Format A and B LSEs MUST be present when a Format C or D LSE is
to be carried in the NAS.
4.3. LSE Format C: Subsequent opcodes
LSE Format C is used to encode the subsequent opcodes in the NAS.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode | Data |S|U| Data | NAL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: LSE Format C: Subsequent opcodes
* Opcode (7 bits) : The operation code for this LSE. See
Section 5.1.
* Data (16 bits + 4 bits) : Opcode specific data
* S (1 bit) : The Bottom of Stack [RFC3032]. If NAL value is non-
zero and if S bit is set to 1, then the packet MUST be dropped.
If this is not the last LSE in the NAS and if S bit is set to 1
then the packet MUST be dropped. The encapsulating node MUST
ensure that S bit is set to 1 only in the Last LSE.
* U (1 bit): Unknown Network Action Handling. See Section 5.4.
* NAL (3 bits): Network Action Length. The number of LSEs of
additional data, encoded in LSE Format D (Section 4.4) following
this LSE. The NAL value MUST be less than or equal to the NASL
value in Format B, if not the packet MUST be dropped.
4.4. LSE Format D: Additional Data
LSE Format D is used to encode additional data that did not fit in
the LSE with the preceding opcode.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Data |S| Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Figure 4: LSE Format D: Additional Data
* 1 (1 bit) : The most significant bit MUST be set. This prevents
legacy implementations from misinterpreting this LSE as containing
a special purpose label if the data begins with zeros.
* S (1 bit) : The Bottom of Stack [RFC3032]. If this is not the
last LSE for the Network Action based on the NAL value and if S
bit is set to 1 then the packet MUST be dropped. If this is not
the last LSE in the NAS and if S bit is set to 1 then the packet
MUST be dropped. The encapsulating node MUST ensure that the S
bit is set to 1 only in the Last LSE.
* Data (22 bits + 8 bits) : Opcode specific data
5. The MNA Sub-Stack
The MNA Sub-Stack MUST begin with a Format A LSE (Section 4.1). The
label field of the LSE contains the MNA bSPL (value TBA) to indicate
the presence of the MNA Sub-Stack.
The TC and TTL fields of the Format A LSE retain their semantics as
defined in [RFC3032] and [RFC5462]. The TTL and TC fields in the
Format A LSE are copied from the forwarding label at the top of the
label stack. The penultimate node on the path may copy the TTL and
TC fields from the preceding LSE to the next LSE on the label stack,
overwriting the TTL and TC fields of the next LSE, as specified in
Section 3.5 of [RFC3443]. If the node performing this copy is not
aware of MNA, this could overwrite the values in the first LSE of the
MNA sub-stack.
The second LSE in a NAS MUST be a Format B LSE (Section 4.2). This
LSE contains an initial opcode plus additional fields that describe
the NAS.
The Format B LSE (Section 4.2) could optionally carry additional data
in Format D (Section 4.4) LSEs, up to the length encoded in the LSE's
NAL value.
An NAS MAY contain more Format C (Section 4.3) and Format D
(Section 4.4) LSEs, up to the length encoded in the NASL value. All
Format D LSEs MUST follow a Format C or B LSE and be included in that
LSE's NAL value.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
5.1. Opcodes
The opcode is a 7-bit field that indicates the semantics of its LSE.
Several opcodes are assigned special semantics (Section 6), others
act as Network Action Indicators and are assigned through IANA
(Section 10 and Section 14.4).
5.2. Data
The data field carries opcode specific data. This is ancillary data
for a network action. In the case of opcode 1, data field carries
Flag-Based Network Action Indicators without ancillary data.
To preserve backward compatibility, if a network action encodes data
that will change during packet forwarding, then that data MUST be in
the least significant 4 bits in the data field of a Format C LSE
(Section 4.3) or the least significant 8 bits of a Format D LSE
(Section 4.4). Some legacy implementations may use the label field
in all LSEs when computing ECMP decisions and modifying the label
field might disrupt that packet's flow.
This is also applicable to opcode 1 Flag-Based Network Action
Indicators those need to be changed in flight.
If a network action needs to encode more data that might need to
change during packet forwarding it will need to use a stack of Format
D LSEs (Section 4.3) (which may be inefficient) or post-stack
ancillary data (which is beyond the scope of this document).
5.3. Scope
The IHS field in the Format B LSE indicates the scope of the In-stack
NAIs encoded in the NAS. Scope defines which nodes along the MPLS
path should perform the network actions found within the NAS. The
specific values of the IHS field are as follows:
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
+======+==========+
| Bits | Scope |
+======+==========+
| 00 | I2E |
+------+----------+
| 01 | HBH |
+------+----------+
| 10 | Select |
+------+----------+
| 11 | Reserved |
+------+----------+
Table 2: IHS Scope Values
Ingress To Egress (I2E) - The NAS MUST NOT be processed by any
node the except the egress node.
Hop-By-Hop (HBH) - All nodes along the path MUST process the NAS.
Select - Only specific nodes along the path that brings NAS to top
of the stack will perform the action.
A single NAS carries only one of the three scopes (I2E/HBH/Select).
To support multiple scopes for a single packet, multiple NASes MAY be
included in a single label stack.
The egress node is included in the HBH scope. This implies that the
penultimate node MUST NOT remove a HBH NAS. The egress node MAY
receive a NAS at the top of the label stack as discussed in
Section 10.
An I2E scope NAS, if present, MUST be encoded after any HBH or
Select-scope NASes. This makes it easier for the transit nodes to
process a NAS with HBH or Select scope.
5.4. Unknown Network Action Handling
The Unknown Network Action Handling (U) field in a Format B LSE
(Section 4.2) and Format C LSE (Section 4.3) is a 1-bit value that
defines the action to be taken by a node that does not understand an
action within the NAS. The different types of Unknown Network Action
Handling actions are defined below.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
+=====+=====================+
| Bit | Action |
+=====+=====================+
| 0 | Skip to the next NA |
+-----+---------------------+
| 1 | Drop the packet |
+-----+---------------------+
Table 3: Unknown Network
Action Handling
When a packet with an unknown Network Action is dropped, the node
SHOULD maintain a local counter for this event, and MAY send a rate-
limited notification to the operator.
5.5. Ordering
The network actions encoded in the NAS MUST be processed as if they
were processed in the order that they appear in the NAS, from the top
of the NAS to the bottom. NAI encoded as flags (see Section 6.2)
MUST be processed as if they were processed from the most significant
bit to the least significant bit. If a label stack contains multiple
NASes, then they MUST be processed as if they were processed in the
order that they appear in the label stack, subject to the
restrictions in Section 7.
6. Special Opcodes
Below are the special opcodes used to build a basic In-stack MNA
solution. In future, additional special opcodes can be defined and
their code-points can be assigned from the "Network Action Opcodes"
IANA registry.
6.1. bSPL Protection
Opcode: 0
Purpose: Legacy implementations may scan the label stack looking for
bSPL values. As long as the opcode field is non-zero, an LSE cannot
be misinterpreted as containing a bSPL. Opcode 0 is therefore
reserved and is not used.
6.2. Flag-Based NAIs without AD
Opcode: 1
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Purpose: Network actions that do not require Ancillary Data do not
require an entire LSE. A single flag can be used to indicate each of
these network actions.
LSE Formats: B, C, D
Data: The data field carries Network Action Indicators, which should
be evaluated from the most significant bit to the least significant
bit. If this opcode is used with LSE Format B only, then up to 13
flags may be carried. If this opcode is used with LSE Format C only,
then up to 20 flags may be carried. Format D LSEs can be used with
format C LSEs to encode more than 20 flags. Flags are assigned from
the "Network Action Flags Without Ancillary Data" registry
(Section 14.3). If flags need to be evaluated in a different order,
multiple LSEs using this opcode may be used to specify the requested
order.
Scope: This opcode can be used with any scope.
6.3. No-Operation Opcode
Opcode: 2
Purpose: This opcode is reserved to indicate that this opcode does
not perform any Network Action and MUST be skipped.
Scope: Format B.
6.4. Extension Opcode
Opcode: 127
Purpose: This opcode is reserved to extend the current opcode range
beyond 127 in future. If this opcode is not supported, then the
packet with the opcode 127 MUST be dropped. Use of this opcode is
outside the scope of this document.
7. NAS placement in the Label Stack
The node adding an NAS to the label stack will need to place a copy
of the NAS where it can be read by the relevant nodes. Each
downstream node along the path will have a Readable Label Depth (RLD)
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]. If the NAS is to be processed by a
downstream MNA-capable node, then the entire NAS MUST be placed so
that it is within RLD by the time the packet reaches the downstream
MNA-capable node and the NAS MUST NOT appear at the top of the stack
at any MNA incapable node on the path.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
If the label stack is deep, several copies of the NAS may need to be
encoded in the label stack.
For a NAS with HBH scope, every node will process the top copy of the
NAS.
For a NAS with Select scope, it is processed by the node that brings
it to the top of stack and then the NAS is removed from the stack.
The select-scoped NAS needs to be inserted after the forwarding label
and needs to be inserted before the next forwarding label. It could
be inserted before or after a HBH NAS.
For I2E scope, only one copy of the NAS needs to be added at the
bottom of the stack.
Transit, non-penultimate nodes that pop a forwarding label and expose
a copy of a NAS MUST remove it.
A node performing Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) that pops the
forwarding label with only the NAS(es) remaining on the stack MUST
NOT remove the NAS(es). Instead, it forwards the packet with the
NAS(es) at the top of stack to the next node.
The node that receives the NAS at the top of the label stack MUST
remove it.
7.1. Actions when Pushing Labels
An MNA-capable node may need to push additional labels as well as
push new network actions onto a received packet.
While pushing additional labels on to the label stack of the receive
packet, the MNA-capable node MUST verify that the entire top-most NAS
with HBH scope is still within the RLD of the downstream MNA-capable
nodes. If required, the MNA-capable node MAY create a copy of the
top-most NAS with HBH scope and insert it within the RLD of the
downstream MNA-capable nodes on the label stack.
When an MNA-capable node needs to push a new NAS with HBH scope on to
a received packet that already has an NAS with HBH scope, it SHOULD
copy (and merge) the network actions (including their Ancillary Data)
from the received top-most NAS with HBH scope in the new NAS with HBH
scope. The new NAS MUST be placed within the RLD of the downstream
MNA-capable nodes. This behavior can be based on local policy.
The new network actions added MUST NOT conflict with the network
actions in the received NAS with HBH scope. The mechanism to resolve
such conflicts depend on the network actions and can be based on
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
local policy. The MNA-capable node that pushes entries MUST
understand any network actions which it is pushing which may result
in a conflict, and MUST resolve any conflicts between new and
received network actions. In the usual case of a conflict of
duplicating a network action, the definition of the network action
will generally give guidance on likely resolutions.
8. Node Capability Signaling
Encapsulating Node is the node that pushes an NAS on to the Label
stack.
The encapsulating node MUST make sure that the NAS can be processed
by the transit and egress nodes.
* The path computation system needs to know the MSD and RLD that can
be imposed at the ingress node of a given SR path [RFC8664]. This
ensures that the label stack depth of a computed path does not
exceed the maximum number of labels (i.e., MSD) the node is
capable of imposing and the maximum number of labels that can be
read by the MNA-processing nodes in the path. The MSD needs to
include the MNA Sub-Stacks to be added.
* The node responsible for selecting a path through the MPLS network
needs to know and consider the MNA-capabilities and RLD of the
transit nodes, and the MNA-capabilities of the end point. it
supports.
* Information about the capabilities of the nodes may be configured,
collected through management protocols, or distributed by control
protocols (such as advertising by routing protocols).
* The mechanisms by which the capabilities of the nodes are known by
the node responsible for selecting a path through the MPLS network
are out of scope for this document.
9. Processing the Network Action Sub-Stack
This section defines the specific responsibilities for nodes along an
LSP.
9.1. Encapsulating Node Responsibilities
The encapsulating node MAY add NASes to the label stack in accordance
with its policies, the placement restrictions in Section 7, and the
limitations learned from Section 8.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
The encapsulating node MUST NOT add an NAS to the label stack if the
egress node does not support MNA.
If there is an existing label stack, the encapsulating node MUST NOT
modify the first 20 bits of any LSE in the label stack when the ECMP
technique in the network is using the hashing of the labels on the
label stack.
If the encapsulating node is also a transit node, then it MUST also
follow the rules set out in Section 9.2.
9.2. Transit Node Responsibilities
Transit Node is the node that process an NAS on to the Label stack
but does not push any new NAS.
The transit node MUST NOT modify the first 20 bits of any LSE in the
label stack when the ECMP technique in the network is using the
hashing of the labels on the label stack.
A transit node MAY change the Ancillary Data found in the least
significant 8 bits of an LSE.
Transit nodes MUST process the NASes in the label stack, according to
the rules set out in Section 5.5.
A transit node that processes an NAS and does not recognise the value
of an opcode MUST follow the rules according to the setting of the
Unknown Action Handling value in the NAS as described in
(Section 5.4).
9.3. Penultimate Node Responsibilities
In addition to the transit node responsibilities, the penultimate
node and penultimate SR-MPLS segment node MUST NOT remove the last
copy of an HBH or I2E NAS when it is exposed after removing the
forwarding (transport) label. This allows the egress node to process
the NAS.
9.4. Egress Node Responsibilities
The egress node MUST remove any NAS it receives.
10. Network Action Indicator Opcode Definition
The following information MUST be defined for new Network Action
Indicator opcode request in the document that specifies the Network
Action.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
A request for a new NAI MUST include the following information:
* Format: The definition of the new Network Action MUST specify the
LSE Formats. The opcode can define Network Action in Format B or
C or both B and C. Both Format B and C LSEs MAY optionally carry
Format D LSE(s).
* Scope: The request MUST specify at-least one scope (I2E, HBH,
Select) for the Network Action. The request MAY specify more than
one scope.
* Ancillary Data: A request MUST specify the quantity, syntax, and
semantics of any associated Ancillary Data. The Ancillary Data
MAY be variable length, but the length MUST be computable based on
the data present in the NAS.
* Processing: The request MUST specify the detailed procedure for
processing the network action.
* Interactions: The definition of the new Network Action MUST
specify its interaction with other currently defined Network
Action if there is any.
An assignment for an NAI MAY make requests from any combination of
the "Network Action Opcodes" or "Network Action Flags Without
Ancillary Data" assignments. This decision should optimize for
eventual encoding efficiency. If the NAI does not require any
ancillary data, then a flag is preferred as only one bit is used in
the encoding.
11. Backward Compatibility
This section discusses interactions between MNA-capable and legacy,
non-MNA-capable nodes.
An MNA-encapsulating node MUST ensure that the MPLS Network Action
Sub-Stack indicator is not at the top of the MPLS Label Stack when
the packet arrives at a non-MNA-capable node. If such a packet did
arrive at a non-MNA-capable node, it will most likely be dropped.
Legacy nodes may scan the label stack, potentially looking for a
label field containing a bSPL. To ensure that the LSE formats
described herein do not appear to contain a bSPL value, the opcode
value of 0 has been reserved. By ensuring that there is a non-zero
value in the high order 7 bits, we are assured that the high order 20
bits cannot be misinterpreted as containing a bSPL value (0-15).
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
The TC and TTL fields of the Format A LSE are not re-purposed for
encoding, as the penultimate node on the MPLS packet path may
propagate TTL from the transport (or forwarding) label to the next
label on the label stack, overwriting the TTL on the next label. If
the penultimate node is a legacy node, it might perform this action,
potentially corrupting other values stored in the TC and TTL fields.
To protect against this, we retain the TC and TTL fields in the
Format A LSE.
12. Implementation Status
[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to [RFC7942]]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
12.1. University of Tuebingen Implementation
The solution defined in the document draft-ietf-mpls-mna-hdr-05 has
been implemented using P4 pipeline. The implementation code can be
found at https://github.com/uni-tue-kn/P4-MNA.
13. Security Considerations
The security considerations in [RFC3032] also apply to this document.
In addition, MNA-creates a new dimension in security concerns:
* The actions of an encapsulating node can affect any or all of the
nodes along the path. In the most common and benign situations,
such as a syntactically incorrect packet could result in packet
loss or corruption.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
* The semantics of a network action are unbounded and may be
insecure. A network action could be defined that made arbitrary
changes to the memory of the forwarding router, which could then
be used by the encapsulating node to compromise every MNA-capable
router in the network. The IETF needs to ensure that only secure
network actions are defined.
* The MNA architecture supports locally-defined network actions.
For such actions, there will be limited oversight to ensure that
the semantics do not create security issues. Implementors and
network operators will need to ensure that locally-defined network
actions do not compromise the security of the network.
* The MNA architecture supports modifying the AD on the intermediate
nodes, so the critical network functions should either not rely on
the data or should be aware of the risks and use other means to
verify the security of the whole network.
* The "private Use" opcodes in "Network Action Opcodes" Section 14.4
and "Network Action Flags Without Ancillary Data" Section 14.3
Registry are subject to the considerations described in [RFC8126].
14. IANA Considerations
14.1. MNA bSPL Label
This document requests that IANA allocate a value (TBA) for the MNA
bSPL label from the "Base Special-Purpose MPLS Label Values" registry
to indicate the presence of an MNA Sub-Stack in the label stack. The
description of the value should be "MPLS Network Actions". The
reference should be this document.
14.2. MPLS Network Actions Parameters
This document requests that IANA create a new category called "MPLS
Network Actions Parameters" within the "Multiprotocol Label Switching
Architecture (MPLS)" category. The registries described below should
belong to this new category.
14.3. Network Action Flags Without Ancillary Data
This document requests that IANA create a new registry with the name
"Network Action Flags Without Ancillary Data". Registration requests
should comply with Section 10. The registration procedure for this
registry is "IETF Review", "Experimental Use" and "Private Use" as
defined in [RFC8126]. The fields in this registry are "Bit Position"
(integer), "Description" (string), and "Reference" (string).
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Bit Position refers to the position relative to the most significant
bit in LSE Format B or C Data fields and any subsequent Format D
LSEs. Bit Position 0 is the most significant bit in an LSE Format B
or C Data field. Bit Position 20 is the most significant bit in the
first LSE Format D Data field. There are 20 bits available in LSE
Format C and 30 bits available in LSE Format D. There are at most 14
Format D LSEs per opcode (due to NASL limit of 15 and Format D
requires Format C LSE), so there are at most 20 + 14 * 30 = 440 bit
positions. The Bit Position is an integer with value 0-469.
The initial assignments for this registry are:
+==============+==================+===============+
| Bit Position | Description | Reference |
+==============+==================+===============+
| 0-14 | IETF Review | This document |
+--------------+------------------+---------------+
| 15-16 | Experimental Use | This document |
+--------------+------------------+---------------+
| 17-19 | Private Use | This document |
+--------------+------------------+---------------+
| 20-469 | IETF Review | This document |
+--------------+------------------+---------------+
Table 4: Network Action Flags Without Ancillary
Data Registry
14.4. Network Action Opcodes
This document requests that IANA create a new registry with the name
"Network Action Opcodes". Registration requests should comply with
Section 10. The registration procedure for this registry is "IETF
Review", "Experimental Use" and "Private Use" as defined in
[RFC8126]. The fields are "Opcode" (integer), "Description"
(string), and "Reference" (string). Opcode is an integer with value
1-126.
+=========+==================+===============+
| Opcode | Description | Reference |
+=========+==================+===============+
| 1-110 | IETF Review | This document |
+---------+------------------+---------------+
| 111-114 | Experimental Use | This document |
+---------+------------------+---------------+
| 115-126 | Private Use | This document |
+---------+------------------+---------------+
Table 5: Network Action Opcodes
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
IANA has allocated values for the following Network Action Opcodes
from "Network Action Opcodes".
+========+===========================+===============+
| Opcode | Description | Reference |
+========+===========================+===============+
| 0 | Reserved | This document |
+--------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 1 | Flag-Based Network Action | This document |
| | Indicators without AD | |
+--------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 2 | No operation Opcode | This document |
+--------+---------------------------+---------------+
| 127 | Opcode Range Extension | This document |
| | Beyond 127 | |
+--------+---------------------------+---------------+
Table 6: Network Action Opcodes
15. Examples
15.1. Network Action Encoding Examples
15.1.1. Network Action Flags without AD
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label=MNA bSPL | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=1 | Flags |R|IHS|S|U|NASL=0 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: NAS with Network Action Flags
This is an example of an NAS with Flag-Based NAIs without Ancillary
Data.
Details:
Opcode=1: This opcode to indicates that the LSE carries Flag-Based
NAIs without AD.
Data: The data field carries the Flag-Based NAIs.
S: This is the bottom of stack bit. Set if and only if this LSE
is the bottom of the stack.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
U: Action to be taken if one of the NAIs are not recognized by the
processing node.
NASL: The NASL value is set to 0, as there are no additional LSEs.
NAL: The NAL value is set to 0, as there are no additional AD
encoded using Format D.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label=MNA bSPL | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=2 | Data=0 |R|IHS|S|U|NASL=2 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=1 | Flag-Based NAIs |0|U| NAIs |NAL=1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Additional Flag-Based NAIs |S|Flag-Based-NAIs|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: Network Action Flags without AD using LSE Format D
In this example, the NAS contains a Format B LSE with No-Operation
Opcode value 2. The next LSE uses Format C, but the Network Action
Flag is not in a bit position contained within the Format C LSE, so a
single Format D LSE has been added to the NAS to carry the flag.
NAL is set to 1 to indicate that Flag-Based NAIs are also encoded in
the next LSE.
NASL is set to 2 to indicate that 2 additional LSEs are used.
15.1.2. Network Action Opcode with AD
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| MNA-Label=bSPL (TBA) | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=8 | Ancillary Data |R|IHS|S|U|NASL=0 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 7: Network action opcode with Ancillary Data
In this example, the NAS is carrying only one Network Action that
requires 13 bits of Ancillary Data.
Details on the Second LSE
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Opcode=8: A network action allocation is outside of this document.
Data: The data field contains 13 bits of ancillary data.
15.1.3. Network Action Opcode with more AD with Format-B
A network action may require more Ancillary Data than can fit in a
single LSE. In this example, a Format D LSE is added to carry
additional Ancillary Data.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label=MNA bSPL | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=10 | Ancillary Data |R|IHS|0|U|NASL=1 |NAL=1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Ancillary Data |S|Ancillary Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 8: Network Action With Additional Ancillary Data
In this example, opcode 10 is encoded in Format B and it requires
more than one LSE's worth of Ancillary Data, so a Format D LSE is
added.
Details on the second LSE:
Opcode=10: An opcode allocation is outside of this document
Ancillary Data: Ancillary data required to process the Network
Action opcode 10
NAL: Length of additional LSEs used to encode its Ancillary data
Details on the third LSE:
Ancillary Data: 22 bits of additional Ancillary data.
Ancillary Data: 8 bits of additional Ancillary Data.
15.1.4. Network Action Opcode with more AD with Format C
A network action may require more Ancillary Data than can fit in a
single LSE. In this example, a Format D LSE is added to carry
additional Ancillary Data.
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label=MNA bSPL | TC |0| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=2 | Data=0 |R|IHS|0|U|NASL=2 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=9 | Ancillary Data |0|U| AD |NAL=1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1| Ancillary Data |S|Ancillary Data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 9: Network Action With Additional Ancillary Data
In this example, opcode 9 requires more than one LSE's worth of
Ancillary Data, so a Format D LSE is added.
Details on the third LSE:
Opcode=9: An opcode allocation is outside of this document
Ancillary Data: Most significant bits of Ancillary data
AD: 4 bits of additional Ancillary Data
Details on the fourth LSE:
Ancillary Data: 22 bits of additional Ancillary data.
Ancillary Data: 8 bits of additional Ancillary Data.
15.2. Network Action Processing Order
The semantics of a network action can vary widely and the results of
processing one network action may affect the processing of a
subsequent network action. See Section 5.5.
15.2.1. Network Action Processing Order
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label=MNA bSPL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=8 | Ancillary Data |R|IHS|S|U|NASL=2 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=7 | Ancillary Data7 |S|U| AD7 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=1 | Flag-Based NAIs |S|U| NAI |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: In-stack NA processing order
In this example, opcode 8 is processed first, then opcode 7, and then
the network action flags are processed from most significant to least
significant.
In a different case, some Flag-Based NAIs may need to be processed
before opcode 7 and some Flag-Based NAIs may need to be processed
after Opcode 7. This can be done by causing some NAIs to appear
earlier in the NAS.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label=MNA bSPL | TC |S| TTL |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=8 | Ancillary Data |R|IHS|S|U|NASL=3 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=1 | 0x01 |S|U| NAI |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=7 | Ancillary Data7 |S|U| AD7 |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opcode=1 | 0x02 |S|U| NAI |NAL=0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 11: Interleaving network actions
In the above example, opcode 8 is processed first, then Flag-Based
NAI 0x01 is processed, then opcode 7 is processed, and finally NAI
0x02 is processed.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-fwk]
Andersson, L., Bryant, S., Bocci, M., and T. Li, "MPLS
Network Actions (MNA) Framework", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-fwk-10, 6 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-fwk-10>.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-requirements]
Bocci, M., Bryant, S., and J. Drake, "Requirements for
Solutions that Support MPLS Network Actions (MNA)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-mpls-mna-
requirements-16, 30 May 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mpls-
mna-requirements-16>.
[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>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
[RFC5462] Andersson, L. and R. Asati, "Multiprotocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Label Stack Entry: "EXP" Field Renamed to "Traffic
Class" Field", RFC 5462, DOI 10.17487/RFC5462, February
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5462>.
[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>.
[RFC9017] Andersson, L., Kompella, K., and A. Farrel, "Special-
Purpose Label Terminology", RFC 9017,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9017, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9017>.
16.2. Informative References
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
[I-D.ietf-mpls-mna-usecases]
Saad, T., Makhijani, K., Song, H., and G. Mirsky, "Use
Cases for MPLS Network Action Indicators and MPLS
Ancillary Data", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-mpls-mna-usecases-11, 27 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-mpls-mna-usecases/>.
[RFC6291] Andersson, L., van Helvoort, H., Bonica, R., Romascanu,
D., and S. Mansfield, "Guidelines for the Use of the "OAM"
Acronym in the IETF", BCP 161, RFC 6291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6291, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6291>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.
Acknowledgments
The authors of this document would like to thank the MPLS Working
Group Open Design Team for the discussions and comments on this
document. The authors would also like to thank Amanda Baber for
reviewing the IANA Considerations and providing many useful
suggestions. The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson, Stewart
Bryant, Greg Mirsky, Joel M. Halpern and Adrian Farrel for reviewing
this document and providing many useful suggestions. The authors
would like to thank Fabian Ihle and Michael Menth, both from
University of Tuebingen, for implementing the solution defined in
this document in P4 pipeline.
Contributors
The following people have substantially contributed to this document:
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Jisu Bhattacharya
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Email: jisu@cisco.com
Bruno Decraene
Orange
Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Xiao Min
ZTE Corp.
Email: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn
Luay Jalil
Verizon
Email: luay.jalil@verizon.com
Jie Dong
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing 100095
China
Email: jie.dong@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei Technologies
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Bin Wen
Comcast
Email: Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com
Sami Boutros
Ciena
Email: sboutros@ciena.com
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft MNA Sub-Stack Solution August 2024
Tony Li
Juniper Networks
United States
Email: tony.li@tony.li
John Drake
Juniper Networks
United States
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Figure 12
Authors' Addresses
Jaganbabu Rajamanickam (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: jrajaman@cisco.com
Rakesh Gandhi (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: rgandhi@cisco.com
Royi Zigler
Broadcom
Email: royi.zigler@broadcom.com
Haoyu Song
Futurewei Technologies
Email: haoyu.song@futurewei.com
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks
United States
Email: kireeti.ietf@gmail.com
Rajamanickam, et al. Expires 3 March 2025 [Page 28]