[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping

Network working group                                     M. Chen(Ed.)
Internet Draft                             Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd
Category: Standards Track                                   N. So(Ed.)
Created: March 9, 2010                                         Verizon
Expires: September 2010


                      Return Path Specified LSP Ping

           draft-chen-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-02.txt


Abstract

   This document defines extensions to the failure-detection protocol
   for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   known as "LSP Ping" that allow selection of the LSP to use for the
   echo reply return path. Enforcing a specific return path can be used
   to verify bidirectional connectivity and also increase LSP ping
   robustness. It may also be used by Bidirectional Forwarding
   Detection (BFD) for MPLS bootstrap signaling thereby making BFD for
   MPLS more robust.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 15, 2009.







Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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.

Conventions used in this document

   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 RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Problem Statements and Solution Overview.......................3
      2.1. Limitations of Existing Mechanisms for Bidirectional LSPs.4
      2.2. Limitations of Existing Mechanisms for Handling Unreliable
      Return Paths...................................................4
   3. Extensions.....................................................5
      3.1. Reply Via Specified Path mode.............................6
      3.2. Reply Path (RP) TLV.......................................6
      3.3. RP TLV sub-TLVs...........................................7
         3.3.1. IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV.............................8
         3.3.2. IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV.............................9
         3.3.3. Bidirectional sub-TLV...............................10
         3.3.4. Any Candidate sub-TLV...............................10
   4. Theory of Operation...........................................11
      4.1. Sending an Echo Request..................................11
      4.2. Receiving an Echo Request................................12
      4.3. Sending an Echo Reply....................................13
      4.4. Receiving an Echo Reply..................................13
   5. Security Considerations.......................................14
   6. IANA Considerations...........................................14
      6.1. Reply mode...............................................14
      6.2. RP TLV...................................................15
      6.3. Sub-TLVs for RP TLV......................................15
   7. Contributors..................................................15
   8. Acknowledgments...............................................16



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   9. References....................................................16
      9.1. Normative References.....................................16
      9.2. Informative References...................................17
   Authors' Addresses...............................................18

1. Introduction

   This document defines extensions to the failure-detection protocol
   for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
   known as "LSP Ping" [RFC4379] that can be used to specify the return
   paths for the echo reply message, increasing the robustness of LSP
   Ping, reducing the opportunity for error, and improving the
   reliability of the echo reply message. A new reply mode, which is
   referred to as "Reply via specified path", is added and a new Type-
   Length-Value (TLV), which is referred to as Reply Path (RP) TLV, is
   defined in this memo.

   With the extensions described in this document, a bidirectional LSP
   and a pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each direction) could
   both be tested with a single operational action, hence providing
   better control plane scalability. The defined extensions can also be
   utilized for creating a single Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
   (BFD) [BFD], [BFD-MPLS] session for a bidirectional LSP or for a
   pair of unidirectional LSPs (one for each direction).

   In this document, term bidirectional LSP includes the co-routed
   bidirectional LSP defined in [RFC3945]and the associated
   bidirectional LSP that is constructed from a pair of unidirectional
   LSPs (one for each direction), and which are associated with one
   another at the LSP's ingress/egress points [RFC5654].

2. Problem Statements and Solution Overview

   MPLS LSP Ping is defined in [RFC4379]. It can be used to detect data
   path failures in all MPLS LSPs, and was originally designed for
   unidirectional LSPs.

   LSP are increasingly being deployed to provide bidirectional
   services. The co-routed bidirectional LSP is defined in [RFC3471]
   and [RFC3473], and the associated bidirectional LSP is defined in
   [RFC5654]. With the deployment of such services, operators have a
   desire to test both directions of a bidirectional LSP in a single
   operation.

   Additionally, when testing a single direction of an LSP (either a
   unidirectional LSP, or a single direction of a bidirectional LSP)



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   using LSP Ping, the validity of the result may be affected by the
   success of delivering the echo response message. Failure to exchange
   these messages between the egress Label Switching Router (LSR) and
   the ingress LSR can lead to false negatives where the LSP under test
   is reported as "down" even though it is functioning correctly.

2.1. Limitations of Existing Mechanisms for Bidirectional LSPs

   With the existing LSP Ping mechanisms as defined in [RFC4379],
   operators have to enable LSP detection on each of the two ends of a
   bidirectional LSP independently. This not only doubles the workload
   for the operators, but may also bring additional difficulties when
   checking the backward direction of the LSP under the following
   conditions:

     1. The LSR that the operator logged on to perform the checking
     operations might not have out-of-band connectivity to the LSR at
     the far end of the LSP.  That can mean it is not possible to check
     the return direction of a bidirectional LSP in a single operation
     -         - the operator must log on to the LSR at the other end of the LSP
     to test the return direction.

     2. The LSP being tested might be an inter-domain/inter-AS LSP
     where the operator of one domain/AS may have no right to log on to
     the LSR at the other end of the LSP since this LSR resides in
     another domain/AS. That can make it completely impossible for the
     operator to check the return direction of a bidirectional LSP.

   Associated bidirectional LSPs have the same issues as those listed
   for co-routed bidirectional LSPs.

   This document defines a mechanism to allow the operator to request
   that both directions of a bidirectional LSP be tested by a single
   LSP Ping message exchange.

2.2. Limitations of Existing Mechanisms for Handling Unreliable Return
      Paths

   [RFC4379] defines 4 reply modes:









Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


         1. Do not reply
         2. Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet
         3. Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet with Router Alert
         4. Reply via application level control channel.

   Obviously, the issue of the reliability of the return path for an
   echo reply message does not apply in the first of these cases.

   [RFC4379] states that the third mode may be used when the IP return
   path is deemed unreliable. This mode of operation requires that all
   intermediate nodes must support the Router Alert option and must
   understand and know how to forward MPLS echo replies.

   This is a rigorous requirement in deployed IP/MPLS networks
   especially since the return path may be through legacy IP-only
   routers. Furthermore, for inter-domain LSPs, the use of the Router
   Alert option may encounter significant issues at domain boundaries
   where the option is usually stripped from all packets. Thus, the use
   of this mode may itself introduce issues that lead to the echo reply
   messages not being delivered.

   And in any case, the use modes 2 or 3 cannot guarantee the delivery
   of echo responses through an IP network that is fundamentally
   unreliable. The failure to deliver echo response messages can lead
   to false negatives making it appear that the LSP has failed.

   Allowing the ingress LSR to control the path used for echo reply
   messages, and in particular forcing those messages to use an LSP
   rather than being sent through the IP network, enables an operator
   to apply an extra level of deterministic process to the LSP Ping
   test.

   This document defines extensions to LSP Ping that can be used to
   specify the return paths of the echo reply message in an LSP echo
   request message.

3. Extensions

   LSP Ping defined in [RFC4379] is carried out by sending an echo
   request message. It carries the Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC)
   information of the tested LSP which indicates which MPLS path is
   being verified, along the same data path as other normal data
   packets belonging to the FEC.

   LSP Ping [RFC4379] defines four reply modes that are used to direct
   the egress LSR in how to send back an echo reply. This document


Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   defines a new reply mode, the Reply Via Specified Path mode. This
   new mode is used to direct the egress LSR of the tested LSP to send
   the echo reply message back along the path specified in the echo
   request message.

   In addition, a new TLV, the Reply Path (RP) TLV, is defined in this
   document. The RP TLV consists of one or more sub-TLVs that can be
   used to carry the specified return path information to be used by
   the echo reply message.

3.1. Reply Via Specified Path mode

   A new reply mode is defined to be carried in the Reply Mode field of
   the LSP Ping echo request message.

   The recommended value of the Reply Via Specified Path mode is 5
   (This is to be confirmed by the IANA).

         Value    Meaning
         -----    -------
             5     Reply via specified path

   The Reply Via Specified Path mode is used to notify the remote LSR
   receiving the LSP Ping echo request message to send back the echo
   reply message along the specified paths carried in the Reply Path
   TLV.

3.2. Reply Path (RP) TLV

   The Reply Path (RP) TLV is optionally included in an echo request
   message. It carries the specified return paths that the echo reply
   message is required to follow. The format of RP TLV is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   RP (reply path) TLV Type    |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Reply Paths                             |
   ~                                                               ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   RP TLV Type field is 2 octets in length, and the type value is TBD
   by IANA.


Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   The Length field is 2 octets in length. It defines the length in
   octets of the Reply Paths field.

   The Reply Paths field is variable in length. It has several nested
   sub-TLVs that describe the specified paths the echo reply message is
   required to follow.



   When the Reply Mode field is set to "Reply via specified path" in an
   LSP echo request message, the RP TLV MUST be present.

3.3. RP TLV sub-TLVs

   Each of the FEC sub-TLVs defined in [RFC4379] is applicable to be a
   sub-TLV for inclusion in the RP TLV for expressing a specific return
   path.

   In addition, four more new sub-TLVs are defined: IPv4 RSVP Tunnel
   sub-TLV, IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV, Bidirectional sub-TLV and Any
   Candidate sub-TLV. Detailed definition is in the following sections.

   With those sub-TLVs defined in [RFC4379] and the sub-TLVs defined in
   this document, it could provide following options for return paths
   specifying:

   1. Specify a particular LSP as return path
         - use those sub-TLVs defined in [RFC4379],

   2. Specify a more generic tunnel FEC as return path
         - use the IPv4/IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLVs defined in Section
             3.3.1 and Section 3.3.2 of this document

   3. Specify the reverse path of the bidirectional LSP as return path
         - use the Bidirectional sub-TLV defined in Section 3.3.3 of
             this document.

   4. Force return path to pure IP path
         - use the Any Candidate sub-TLV only

   5. Allow any LSPs except specific or general ones as return path
         - use the Any Candidate sub-TLV,
         - and include other sub-TLVs



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


3.3.1. IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV

   The IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV is used in the RP TLV to allow the
   operator to specify a more generic tunnel FEC other than a
   particular LSP as the return path. The egress LSR chooses any LSP
   from the LSPs that have the same Tunnel attributes and satisfy the
   conditions carried in the Flag field. The format of IPv4 RSVP Tunnel
   sub-TLV is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV Type |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 IPv4 tunnel end point address                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Flag             |     Tunnel ID                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   IPv4 tunnel sender address                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   The IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV is derived from the RSVP IPv4 FEC TLV
   that is defined in Section 3.2.3 [RFC4379]. All fields have the same
   semantics as defined in [RFC4379] except that the LSP-ID field is
   omitted and a new Flag field is defined.

   The IPv4 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV Type field is 2 octets in length, and
   the recommended type value is 19 (to be confirmed by IANA).

   The Flag field is 2 octets in length, it is used to notify the
   egress LSR how to choose the return path. The Flag field is a bit
   vector and has following format:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      MUST be zero         |S|P|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   P (Primary): the return path MUST be chosen from the LSPs that have
   the same Tunnel attributes and the LSP MUST be the primary LSP.



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   S (Secondary): the return path MUST be chosen from the LSPs that
   have the same Tunnel attributes and the LSP MUST be the secondary
   LSP.

   P bit and S bit MUST not both be set. If P bit and S bit are both
   not set, the return path could be any one of the LSPs that have the
   same Tunnel attributes.

3.3.2. IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV

   The IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV is used in the RP TLV to allow the
   operator to specify a more generic tunnel FEC other than a
   particular LSP as the return path. The egress LSR chooses an LSP
   from the LSPs that have the same Tunnel attributes and satisfy the
   conditions carried in the Flag field. The format of IPv6 RSVP Tunnel
   sub-TLV is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV Type |        Length                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 IPv6 tunnel end point address                 |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              Flag             |     Tunnel ID                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Extended Tunnel ID                      |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   IPv6 tunnel sender address                  |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV is derived from RSVP IPv6  FEC TLV that
   is defined in Section 3.2.4 of [RFC4379].All fields have the same




Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   semantics as defined in [RFC4379] except that the LSP-ID field is
   omitted and a new Flag field is defined..

   The IPv6 RSVP Tunnel sub-TLV Type field is 2 octets in length, and
   the recommended type value is 20 (to be confirmed by IANA).

   The Flag field is 2 octets in length and is identical to that
   described in Section 3.3.

3.3.3. Bidirectional sub-TLV

   The Bidirectional sub-TLV is used in the RP TLV when the return path
   is required to follow the reverse direction of the tested
   bidirectional LSP. The format of Bidirectional sub-TLV is as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Bidirectional sub-TLV Type   |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Bidirectional sub-TLV Type field is 2 octets in length, and the
   recommended type value is 17 (to be confirmed by IANA).

   The Length field is 2 octets in length, the value of length field
   MUST be 0, which means that there are no value fields following.

3.3.4. Any Candidate sub-TLV

   The Any Candidate sub-TLV is used in the RP TLV when the return path
   is required to exclude the paths that are identified by any other
   reply path sub-TLVs carried in the echo request message. This is
   very useful when one or more previous LSP Ping attempts failed. By
   carrying an Any Candidate sub-TLV and the previous failed reply path
   sub-TLVs, a new LSP Ping echo request could be used to help the
   egress LSR to select another candidate path when sending echo reply
   message. If there is only an Any Candidate sub-TLV included in the
   echo request (i.e., no other sub-TLVs are present in the RP TLV),
   the egress LSR MUST select a non-LSP path (e.g., an IP path) as the
   return path. This is very useful when reverse MPLS path problems are
   suspected which can be confirmed when the echo reply is forced to
   follow an IP path. The format of the Any Candidate sub-TLV is as
   follows:





Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Any Candidate sub-TLV Type   |          Length               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Any Candidate sub-TLV Type field is 2 octets in length, and the
   recommended type value is 18 (to be confirmed by IANA).

   The Length field is 2 octets in length, the value of length field
   MUST be 0, it means that there is no any value fields follows.

4. Theory of Operation

   The procedures defined in this document currently only apply to
   "ping" mode. The "traceroute" mode is out of scope for this document.

   In [RFC4379], the echo reply is used to report the LSP checking
   result to the LSP Ping initiator. This document defines a new reply
   mode and a new TLV (RP TLV) which enable the LSP ping initiator to
   specify or constrain the return path of the echo reply. Similarly
   the behavior of echo reply is extended to detect the requested
   return path by looking at a specified path FEC TLV. This enables LSP
   Ping to detect failures in both directions of a path with a single
   operation, this of course cuts in half the operational steps
   required to verify the end to end bidirectional connectivity and
   integrity of an LSP.

   When the echo reply message is intended to test the return MPLS LSP
   path, the destination IP address of the echo reply message MUST
   never be used in a forwarding decision. To avoid this possibility
   the destination IP address of the echo reply message that is
   transmitted along the specified return path MUST be set to numbers
   from the range 127/8 for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104 for IPv6,
   and the IP TTL MUST be set 1.  Of course when the echo reply message
   is not intended for testing the specified return path, the
   procedures defined in [RFC4379] (the destination IP address is
   copied from the source IP address) apply unchanged.

4.1. Sending an Echo Request

   When sending an echo request, in addition to the rules and
   procedures defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC4379], the reply mode of
   the echo request MUST be set to "Reply via specified path", and a RP
   TLV MUST be carried in the echo request message correspondingly. The



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   RP TLV includes one or several reply path sub-TLV(s) to identify the
   return path(s) the egress LSR should use for its reply.

   For a bidirectional LSP, since the ingress LSR and egress LSR of a
   bidirectional LSP are aware of the relationship between the forward
   and backward direction LSPs, only a Bidirectional sub-TLV SHOULD be
   carried within the RP TLV. If the operator wants the echo reply to
   be sent along a different path other than the reverse direction of
   the bidirectional LSP, another FEC sub-TLV SHOULD be carried in the
   RP TLV instead.

   In some cases, operators may want to treat two unidirectional LSPs
   (one for each direction) as a pair. There may not be any binding
   relationship between the two LSPs. Using the mechanism defined in
   this document, operators can run LSP Ping one time from one end to
   complete the failure detection on both unidirectional LSPs. To
   accomplish this, the echo request message MUST carry (in the RP TLV)
   a FEC sub-TLV that belongs to the backward LSP.

4.2. Receiving an Echo Request

   "Ping" mode processing as defined in Section 4.4 of [RFC4379]
   applies in this document. In addition, when an echo request is
   received, if the egress LSR does not know the reply mode defined in
   this document, an echo reply with the return code set to "Malformed
   echo request" and the Subcode set to zero will be send back to the
   ingress LSR according to the rules of [RFC4379]. If the egress LSR
   knows the reply mode, according to the RP TLV, it SHOULD find and
   select the desired return path, if there is no such path, an echo
   reply with Errored TLVs [RFC4379] that contains the RP TLV SHOULD be
   sent back to the ingress LSR, which is used to tell the ingress LSR
   that the requested return path does not exist.

   As described in Section 3.3.4 of this document, the Any Candidate
   sub-TLV has two functions: 1) helping the egress LSR to exclude some
   undesired paths, and 2) indicating whether the return path SHOULD be
   tested (by carrying the FEC stack TLV of the return path).

   If an Any Candidate sub-TLV is present, the egress LSR MUST exclude
   the paths identified by those FEC sub-TLVs carried in the RP TLV and
   select other path to send the echo reply.

   If no Any Candidate sub-TLV is present, it means that the echo reply
   is REQUIRED not only to send along the specified path, but to detect
   the selected return path as well (by carrying the FEC stack TLV of
   the return path). In addition, the FEC validate results of forward



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   path LSP SHOULD not affect the egress LSR continue to test return
   path LSP.

4.3. Sending an Echo Reply

   As described in [RFC4379], the echo reply message is a UDP packet,
   and it MUST be sent only in response to an MPLS echo request. The
   source IP address is a routable IP address of the replier, the
   source UDP port is the well-know UDP port for LSP ping.

   When the echo reply is intended to test the return path, the
   destination IP address of the echo reply message MUST never be used
   in a forwarding decision. To avoid this problem, the IP destination
   address of the echo reply message that is transmitted along the
   specified return path MUST be set to numbers from the range 127/8
   for IPv4 or 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104 for IPv6, and the IP TTL MUST be
   set 1. If the echo reply is required to test the return path, the
   echo reply MUST have a FEC stack TLV describing the return path,
   which is used for the ingress LSR to perform FEC validation. The FEC
   stack TLV of the forward path MUST NOT be copied to the echo reply.
   And the FEC stack TLV of forward LSP MUST not be copied to the echo
   reply.

   If the echo reply message is not intended for testing the specified
   return path, the same as defined in [RFC4379], the destination IP
   address and UDP port are copied from the source IP address and
   source UDP port of the echo request.

   When sending the echo reply, the RP TLV carried in the received echo
   request MAY be copied to the echo reply to give the Ingress LSR
   enough information about the reverse direction of the tested path to
   verify the consistency of the data plane against control plane.

4.4. Receiving an Echo Reply

   The rules and process defined in Section 4.6 of [RFC4379] apply here.
   When an echo reply is received, if the reply mode is "Reply via
   specified path" and a FEC stack TLV exists, it means that the echo
   reply has both Ping result reporting and reverse path checking
   functions. The ingress LSR MUST do FEC validation as an egress LSR
   does when receiving an echo request, the FEC validation process
   (relevant to "ping" mode) defined in Section 4.4.1 of [RFC4379]
   applies here.

   When an echo reply is received with return code set to "Malformed
   echo request received" and the Subcode set to zero. It is possible



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   that the egress LSR may not know the "Reply via specified path"
   reply mode, the operator may choose to re-perform another LSP Ping
   by using one of the four reply modes defined [RFC4379].

   On receipt of an echo reply with an Errored TLVs and an RP TLV is
   carried, if the return code is not set to "TLV not understood", it
   means that the egress LSR could not find a matched return path as
   specified. Operators may choose to specify another LSP as the return
   path or use other methods to detect the path.

   When the LSP Ping initiator fails after some time to receive the
   echo reply message, the operator MAY initiate another LSP Ping by
   resending a new echo request carrying a RP TLV that includes an Any
   Candidate sub-TLV and the previous sent reply path sub-TLV(s)
   (Bidirectional sub-TLV or FEC sub-TLVs) to notify the egress LSR to
   send echo reply message along any other workable path (no matter
   what MPLS LSP or IP path) excluding the path(s) identified by those
   Bidirectional sub-TLV or/and FEC sub-TLVs. Hence it could improve
   the reliability of the echo reply message. In such a mode, the echo
   reply SHOULD NOT be used to detect the return path.

5. Security Considerations

   Security considerations discussed in [RFC4379] apply to this
   document. In addition to that, in order to prevent using the
   extension defined in this document for "proxying" any possible
   attacks, the return path LSP MUST have destination to the same node
   where the forward path is from.

6. IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to make the following allocations from registries
   under its control.

6.1. Reply mode

   IANA is requested to assign a new reply mode as follows:

   Reply mode:









Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


      Value    Meaning
      -----    -------
          5    Reply via specified path

6.2. RP TLV

   IANA is requested to assign a new TLV type (TBD) from the range of
   0-16383. We suggest that the value 20 be assigned for the new RP TLV
   type.

       Type    Value Field
      -----    -----------
         20    Reply Path

6.3. Sub-TLVs for RP TLV

   This document defines four new sub-TLV Types (described in Section
   3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7) of RP TLV, and those FEC sub-TLVs defined in
   [RFC4379] are applicable for inclusion in RP TVL.

   IANA is requested to assign sub-TLVs as follows. The following
   numbers are suggested:

      Sub-type        Value Field                  Reference
      --------        -----------                  ---------
            17        Bidirectional                this document
            18        Any Candidate                this document
            19        IPv4 RSVP Tunnel             this document
            20        IPv6 RSVP Tunnel             this document

7. Contributors

   The following individuals also contributed to this document:













Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


   Ehud Doron
   Orckit-Corrigent

   EMail: ehudd@orckit.com


   Ronen Solomon
   Orckit-Corrigent

   EMail: RonenS@orckit.com


   Ville Hallivuori
   Tellabs
   Sinimaentie 6 C
   FI-02630 Espoo, Finland

   EMail: ville.hallivuori@tellabs.com

8. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Peter Ashwood-
   Smith for their review, suggestion and comments to this document.

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4379] K. Kompella., et al., "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
             Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, February
             2006.

   [BFD]     D. Katz, D. and Ward, D., "Bidirectional Forwarding
             Detection", draft-ietf-bfd-base, work in progress.

   [BFD-MPLS] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and Swallow, G.,
             "BFD For MPLS LSPs", draft-ietf-bfd-mpls, work in progress.

   [BFD-IP]  D. Katz, D. Ward, "BFD for IPv4 and IPv6 (Single Hop)",
             draft-ietf-bfd-v4v6-1hop-08.txt.






Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


9.2. Informative References

   [RFC3471] L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471,
             January 2003.

   [RFC3473] L. Berger, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Signaling", RFC 3473, January 2003.

   [RFC3945] E. Mannie, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
             (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004.

   [RFC5654] Niven-Jenkins, B. (Ed.), Brungard, D. (Ed.), Betts, M.
             (Ed.) Sprecher, N., and Ueno, S., "Requirements of an MPLS
             Transport Profile", RFC 5654, September 2009.

































Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei Technology Co., Ltd.
   No. 9 Xinxi Road
   Shangdi Information Industry Base
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100085
   China


   EMail: mach@huawei.com


   So Ning
   Verizon
   2400 N. Glem Ave.,
   Richerson, TX  75082

   Phone: +1 972-729-7905
   EMail: ning.so@verizonbusiness.com


   Frederic Jounay
   France Telecom
   2, avenue Pierre-Marzin
   22307 Lannion Cedex
   FRANCE

   EMail: frederic.jounay@orange-ftgroup.com


   Simon Delord
   Telstra
   242 Exhibition St
   Melbourne VIC 3000
   Australia

   EMail: simon.a.delord@team.telstra.com


   Xinchun Guo
   Huawei Technology Co., Ltd.
   No. 9 Xinxi Road
   Shangdi Information Industry Base
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100085
   China



Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft     Return Path Specified LSP Ping           March 2010



   EMail: guoxinchun@huawei.com


   Wei Cao
   Huawei Technology Co., Ltd.
   No. 9 Xinxi Road
   Shangdi Information Industry Base
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100085
   China


   EMail: caoweigne@huawei.com



































Chen, et al.          Expires September 9, 2010              [Page 19]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/