IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options

Manner, Jukka; McDonald, Andrew

doi:10.17487/rfc5350

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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: 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.…”

Section: Iana Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

Raza¹,

Pignataro²,

Akiya³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.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.

show abstract

Section: Iana Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

Raza¹,

Pignataro²,

Akiya³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Router Alert option is defined in RFC 2113 [RFC2113] and later updates to it have been clarified by RFC 5350 [RFC5350]. It contains a 16-bit Value governed by an IANA registry (see [RFC5350]).…”

Section: Router Alert (Type=148)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It contains a 16-bit Value governed by an IANA registry (see [RFC5350]). The Router Alert option has the semantic "routers should examine this packet more closely, if they participate in the functionality denoted by the Value of the option".…”

Section: Router Alert (Type=148)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4

Gont¹

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, an implementation MAY support selective forwarding within the fast path (subject to all normal policies and forwarding rules) or punting of a packet with the IP Router Alert Option, based on the Value field of the Router Alert Option. This would allow router protection against DoS attacks using IP Router Alert packets with a value that is not relevant for that router (e.g., nesting levels of aggregated RSVP reservation [RFC5350]).…”

Section: Le Faucheur Best Current Practice [Page 12]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it is generally not possible to ensure that only the IP Router Alert packets for next level protocols of interest are punted to the slow path while other IP Router Alert packets are efficiently forwarded (i.e., in the fast path).Some IP Router Alert implementations are able to take into account the Value field inside the Router Alert Option. However, only one value (zero) was defined in[RFC2113], and no IANA registry for IPv4 Router Alert values was available until recently ([RFC5350]). So this did not allow most IPv4 Router Alert implementations to support useful classification based on the Value field in the fast path.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage

Faucheur¹

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The IP Router Alert Option is an IP option that alerts transit routers to more closely examine the contents of an IP packet. The Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP), Pragmatic General Multicast (PGM), the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP), Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD), Multicast Router Discovery (MRD), and General Internet Signaling Transport (GIST) are some of the protocols that make use of the IP Router Alert Option. This document discusses security aspects and usage guidelines around the use of the current IP Router Alert Option, thereby updating RFC 2113 and RFC 2711. Specifically, it provides recommendations against using the Router Alert in the end-to-end open Internet and identifies controlled environments where protocols depending on Router Alert can be used safely. It also provides recommendations about protection approaches for service providers. Finally, it provides brief guidelines for Router Alert implementation on routers. Status of This Memo This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice. 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 BCPs 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/rfc6398.

show abstract

IANA Considerations for the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert Options

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

IPv6 Router Alert Option for MPLS Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)

Security Assessment of the Internet Protocol Version 4

IP Router Alert Considerations and Usage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About