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

Versions: (draft-chen-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping) 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 6829

Network Working Group                                            M. Chen
Internet-Draft                              Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Updates: 4379 (if approved)                                       P. Pan
Intended status: Standards Track                                Infinera
Expires: April 14, 2013                                     C. Pignataro
                                                                R. Asati
                                                                   Cisco
                                                        October 11, 2012


        Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
                  draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-02

Abstract

   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
   and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate
   data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs.
   The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified
   for IPv6 address usage.

   This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so
   they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379.

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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 http://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 April 14, 2013.

Copyright Notice



Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.1.  IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.2.  IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Summary of Changes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.  Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8





















Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


1.  Introduction

   Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
   and traceroute are defined in [RFC4379].  These mechanisms can be
   used to detect data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs).  The PW LSP Ping and traceroute
   elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage.

   Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP
   Ping and traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge
   (PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6
   addresses.  Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class
   (FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated,
   FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections
   3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]).  These sub-TLVs contain the
   source and destination addresses of the target LDP session, and
   currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered.  Despite the fact
   that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV
   definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths
   of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields, or calculating the Length
   of the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]).  When an IPv6 target
   LDP session is used, therefore these existing sub-TLVs can not be
   used since the addresses will not fit.  Additionally, all other sub-
   TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not
   the PW sub-TLVs.

   This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain the existing
   PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends the PW LSP Ping to
   IPv6 LDP sessions (i.e., when IPv6 LDP sessions are used to signal
   the PW, the Sender's and Receiver's IP addresses are IPv6 addresses).
   This is done by renaming the existing PW sub-TLVs to say "IPv4", and
   also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire
   sub-TLV and IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV) to extend the
   application of PW LSP Ping and traceroute to the IPv6 usage when an
   IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the
   Pseudowire.  Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined
   for IPv6 in this document.


2.  IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs

   This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10
   of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6.
   This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion, and to
   clarify that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses.  Note that the
   changes are limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic
   changes.




Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


   Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and
   state:

      "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)

      "FEC 128" Pseudowire

      "FEC 129" Pseudowire

   These names and titles are now changed to:

      IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)

      IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire

      IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire

   Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three
   sections state:

      Sender's PE Address

      Remote PE Address

   These are now updated to say:

      Sender's PE IPv4 Address

      Remote PE IPv4 Address


3.  IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs

3.1.  IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV

   IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC
   128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379].
   The encoding of IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is as follows:













Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


      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 FEC 128 PW Type     |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                   Sender's PE IPv6 Address                    ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                    Remote PE IPv6 Address                     ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                             PW ID                             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            PW Type            |          Must Be Zero         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire

   IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type: TBD. 2 octets.

   Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
   TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets.

   Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
   LDP session. 16 octets.

   Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
   LDP session. 16 octets.

   PW ID: Same as IPv4 FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].

   PW Type: Same as IPv4 FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].

   IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV is applicable to be a sub-TLV for
   inclusion in the Reply Path TLV
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] for expressing a
   specific return path.

3.2.  IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV

   IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC
   129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379].
   The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows:










Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


      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 FEC 129 PW Type     |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                   Sender's PE IPv6 Address                    ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                    Remote PE IPv6 Address                     ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |            PW Type            |   AGI Type    |  AGI Length   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                           AGI Value                           ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   AII Type    |  SAII Length  |      SAII Value               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                    SAII Value (continued)                     ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   AII Type    |  TAII Length  |      TAII Value               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ~                    TAII Value (continued)                     ~
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  TAII (cont.) |  0-3 octets of zero padding                   |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire

   IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type: TBD. 2 octets.

   Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
   TLV. 2 octets

   The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII
   length.  Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4;
   the length of the padding is not included in the Length field.

   Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
   LDP session. 16 octets.

   Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
   LDP session. 16 octets.

   The other fields are same as IPv4 FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379].

   IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV is applicable to be a sub-TLV for
   inclusion in the Reply Path TLV
   [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping] for expressing a
   specific return path.




Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


4.  Summary of Changes

   Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target
   FEC Stack.  Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the
   table would show the following:

   Sub-Type       Length        Value Field
   --------       ------        -----------
     ...
          9           10        IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (deprecated)
         10           14        IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
         11          16+        IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
     ...
        TBD           38        IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
        TBD          40+        IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire


5.  Operation

   This document does not define any new procedures.  The process
   described in [RFC4379] MUST be used.


6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to perform the following assignments in the "Multi-
   Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
   Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.

   [RFC Editor: To be REMOVED prior to publication.  This registration
   should take place at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
   mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
   mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#mpls-lsp-ping-parameters-7>]

   Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding
   the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to
   point to this document:

   Type       Sub-Type        Value Field
   ----       --------        -----------
      1            9          IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
      1           10          IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
      1           11          IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire

   Create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of Target FEC TLV (see
   Section 3):





Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


   Type       Sub-Type        Value Field
   ----       --------        -----------
      1         TBD1          IPv6 "FEC 128" Pseudowire
      1         TBD2          IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire


7.  Security Considerations

   This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security
   mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.


8.  Acknowledgements

   The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim,
   Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella.


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]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              February 2006.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6]
              Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro,
              "Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07
              (work in progress), June 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping]
              Chen, M., Cao, W., Ning, S., JOUNAY, F., and S. DeLord,
              "Return Path Specified LSP Ping",
              draft-ietf-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-10 (work in
              progress), September 2012.










Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              IPv6 PW LSP Ping                October 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Mach(Guoyi) Chen
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District
   Beijing  100085
   China

   Email: mach@huawei.com


   Ping Pan
   Infinera
   US

   Email: ppan@infinera.com


   Carlos Pignataro
   Cisco Systems
   7200-12 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   US

   Email: cpignata@cisco.com


   Rajiv Asati
   Cisco Systems
   7025-6 Kit Creek Road
   Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
   US

   Email: rajiva@cisco.com

















Chen, et al.             Expires April 14, 2013                 [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/