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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04

Networking Working Group                                       Ran. Chen
Internet-Draft                                              Greg. Mirsky
Intended status: Standards Track                            Shaofu. Peng
Expires: August 30, 2019                                 ZTE Corporation
                                                       February 26, 2019


                         BIER-TE Ping and Trace
                       draft-chen-bier-te-ping-04

Abstract

   Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)-TE shares architecture and
   packet formats with BIER-TE forwards and replicates packets based on
   a BitString in the packet header, but every BitPosition of the
   BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one or more adjacencies.

   This document describes the mechanism and basic BIER-TE OAM packet
   format that can be used to perform Ping and Traceroute on the BIER-TE
   network.

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 August 30, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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



Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  BIER-TE OAM Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Target FEC Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.1.1.  BIER-TE forward-connected TLV . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  BIER-TE local-decap sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.1.3.  BIER-TE forward-routed TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Downstream Mapping TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Reply-To TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  BIER-TE OAM Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Sending BIER Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Receiving BIER Echo Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.3.  Sending Echo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  Receiving Echo Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.1.  TLVs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.2.  Target FEC Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     6.3.  Downstream Detailed Mapping Sub-TLVs  . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch] introduces and explains BIER-TE architecture
   that provides policy-based multicast forwarding through a "BIER-TE
   domain" without requiring intermediate routers to maintain any
   multicast related per-flow state.  BIER-TE forwards and replicates
   packets based on a BitString in the packet header, but every
   BitPosition of the BitString of a BIER-TE packet indicates one or
   more adjacencies.

   This document describes the mechanism and the basic BIER-TE OAM
   packet format that can be used to perform Ping and Traceroute on the
   BIER-TE network.

   This document enhances the BIER Ping and Traceroute, as defined in
   [I-D.ietf-bier-ping].  [RFC8296] defines a 4-bit field as "Proto" to
   identify the payload following BIER header.  When the payload is




Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   BIER-TE OAM, the "Proto" field is the same with the BIER OAM "Proto"
   field.

2.  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 RFC2119.

3.  BIER-TE OAM Packet format

   The BIER-TE OAM packet header format and the fields are the same as
   the BIER OAM header [I-D.ietf-bier-ping].  This document defines two
   new return codes and the new TLVs and Sub-TLVs.

   The new Return codes are follows:

   TBA1 Replying BFR is not in the path to any target BFER

   TBA2 Mapping for this FEC is not the given BitPosition in BitString

   The TLVs and Sub-TLVs requested by this document for IANA
   consideration are the following:


                  Type               value field
               --------          ---------------------------------
                   9                Target FEC Stack
                   10               Reply-To TLV

3.1.  Target FEC Stack

   A BIER-TE echo request MAY include the Target FEC Stack TLV that
   describes the FEC Stack being tested.  If there aren't adjacency
   keyword information in BFIR, the FEC Stack MUST not be tested, and
   the Nil FEC MUST be used.

   We define three new FEC Stack types.  The Target FEC Stack is a list
   of sub-TLVs.


          Sub-Type     Length                  Value Field
         --------     --------           -------------------------------
            29        20 or 48 octets     BIER-TE forward-connected
            30        8 or 10 octets      BIER-TE local-decap
            31        4 or 6 octets       BIER-TE forward-routed





Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   Other FEC Types will be defined as needed.

3.1.1.  BIER-TE forward-connected TLV

   The format is as below:



        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Type             |        Length                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Protocol   |  Address Type |      Reserved                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                Local Interface ID (4 or 16 octets)            |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                Remote Interface ID (4 or 16 octets)           |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                                                               ~
       |          Advertising Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                                                               ~
       |             Receiving Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets)         |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Address Type

   The Address Type indicates the address type and length of the IP
   address for the downstream interface.  The Address type MAY be set to
   one of the values listed in Table below:


          Type      Addr. Type        DA Length            DIA Length
        --------  --------------   --------------      -----------------
           1      IPv4 Numbered         4                     4
           2      IPv4 Unnumbered       4                     4
           3      IPv6 Numbered         16                    16
           4      IPv6 Unnumbered       16                    4

   DA Length - Downstream Address field Length.

   DIA Length - Downstream Interface Address field Length.

   Local Interface ID

   Local BFR assigns Local Interface ID for a link to which Adjacency ID
   is bound.  This field is set to local link address (IPv4 or IPv6).



Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   Remote Interface ID

   Remote BFR assigns Remote Interface ID for a link to which Adjacency
   ID is bound.  This field is set to remote link address (IPv4 or
   IPv6).

   Advertising Node Identifier

   Advertising Node Identifier is the advertising node identifier.  When
   Protocol is set to 1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF
   Router ID, and if Protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit
   ISIS System ID.

   Receiving Node Identifier

   Receiving Node Identifier is the downstream node identifier.  When
   Protocol is set to 1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF
   Router ID, and if Protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit
   ISIS System ID.

3.1.2.  BIER-TE local-decap sub-TLV

   The format is as below:



        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
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |              Type             |        Length                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |    Protocol   |                      Reserved                 |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       ~                                                               ~
       |          Advertising Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets)          |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Advertising Node Identifier

   Advertising Node Identifier is the advertising node identifier.  When
   Protocol is set to 1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF
   Router ID and if protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit ISIS
   System ID.







Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


3.1.3.  BIER-TE forward-routed TLV

   The ipv4 format is as below:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Type             |        Length                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |                        BFR IPv4 Prefix                        | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   IPv4 Prefix:This field carries the IPv4 prefix.

   The ipv6 format is as below:


      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |              Type             |        Length                 |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                            Reserved                           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                   BFR IPv6 Prefix                             |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   IPv6 Prefix:This field carries the IPv6 prefix.

3.2.  Downstream Mapping TLV

   This TLV format is the same with the BIER OAM [I-D.ietf-bier-ping]
   and we a new Sub-TLV: FEC stack change Sub-TLV.


                     Sub-TLV Type              Value
                     ---------------   ------------------------
                            3            FEC stack change

3.2.1.  FEC Stack Change Sub-TLV

   The format and the usage as defined in [RFC6424].






Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


         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 2
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Operation Type | Address Type  | FEC-tlv length|  Reserved     |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Remote Peer Address (0, 4 or 16 octets)             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      .                                                               .
      .                         FEC TLV                               .
      .                                                               .
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


   Operation Type

   The operation type specifies the action associated with the FEC Stack
   Change.  A new operation type is defined:


                                  Type    Operation
                                 -----    -----------
                                   3        Remove

   Address type: 0.

   FEC TLV Length: Length in bytes of the FEC TLV.

   Reserved: This field is reserved for future use and MUST be set to
   zero.

   Remote Peer Address: 0.

   FEC TLV

   The FEC TLV is present only when the FEC-tlv length field is nonzero.
   The FEC TLV specifies the FEC associated with the FEC stack change
   operation.  The FEC type is defined in section 3.1.

3.3.  Reply-To TLV

   The Initiator BFR MAY include the Reply-To TLV in Echo Request
   message.  The Reply-to TLV is used by a transit BFR or BFER when the
   reply mode is "Reply via IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet".

   The IP address will be used as the destination IP address for the
   Echo Reply.  The format and usage are the same as defined for the
   BIER OAM header [I-D.ietf-bier-ping].




Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


4.  BIER-TE OAM Processing

   BIER-TE OAM packet MUST be sent to BIER control plane for OAM
   processing if one of the following conditions is true:

   o  The receiving BFR is a BFER.

   o  TTL of BIER-MPLS Label expired.

   o  Presence of Router Alert label in the label stack.

4.1.  Sending BIER Echo Request

   o  Message Type:1.

   o  Return Code:0.

   o  Proto:0.

   o  Sender's Handle and Sequence number:The local matter to Initiator
      and SHOULD increment the Sequence number by 1 for every subsequent
      Echo Request.

   o  QTF:Initiator's local timestamp format.

   o  TimeStamp Sent:the time that the Echo Request is sent.

   o  MUST include Original SI-BitString TLV.

   o  In Ping mode, the Initiator MAY include Target SI-BitString TLV to
      control the responding BFER(s) by listing all local-decap
      Adjacency ID of the BFERs from which the Initiator expects a
      response.  Initiator on receiving a reply with Return code as
      "Replying BFR is the only BFER in header Bitstring" or "Replying
      router is one of the BFER in header Bitstring", SHOULD remove the
      BFER's local-decap ID from Target SI-BitString for any subsequent
      Echo Request.

   o  When the Reply mode is set to 2, Initiator MUST include Reply-To
      TLV in the Echo Request.

   o  The Initiator MAY include Downstream Mapping TLV in the Echo
      Request to query additional information from transit BFRs and
      BFERs.  In the case of ECMP discovery, Initiator MUST include the
      Multipath Entropy Data Sub-TLV and SHOULD set the Target SI-
      BitString TLV carrying a specific BFER's local-decap Adjacency ID.





Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   o  The Initiator MUST encapsulate the OAM packet with BIER header and
      MUST set the Proto as 6 and further encapsulates with BIER-MPLS
      label.  In ping mode, the BIER-MPLS Label TTL MUST be set to 255.
      In traceroute mode, the BIER-MPLS Label TTL is set successively
      starting from 1 and MUST stop sending the Echo Request if it
      receives a reply with Return code as "Replying router is the only
      BFER in BIER header Bitstring" from all BFER listed in Target SI-
      BitString TLV.

   o  MUST PUSH the corresponding FEC to Target FEC stack, in the same
      with as the order of the adjacency's bit-position in the
      BitString.

4.2.  Receiving BIER Echo Request

   Reply-Flag:This flag is initially set to 1.

   Interface-I:The incoming interface on which the Echo Request was
   received.

   BIER-Label-L:The BIER-MPLS Label received as the top label on
   received Echo Request.

   Header-H:The BIER header from the received Echo Request.

   Best-return-code: contains the return code for the echo reply packet
   as currently best known.

   If the received Echo Request carries Target SI-BitString TLV, a BFR
   SHOULD run boolean AND operation between BitString in Header-H and
   BitString in Target SI-BitString TLV.

   If the resulting BitString is all-zero, Set Best-return-code to
   "Mapping for this FEC is not the given BitPosition in BitString" and
   Go to section 4.3, Else:

   o  If the BIER-Label-L does not correspond to the local label
      assigned for {sub-domain, BitStringLen, SI} in Original
      SIBitString TLV, Set the Best-return-code to "Set-Identifier
      Mismatch" and Go to section 4.3.

   o  If any of the TLVs in Echo Request message is not understood.  Set
      the Best-return-code to "One or more of the TLVs was not
      understood" and Go to section 4.3.

   o  If the forwarding lookup defined in section 6.5 of RFC8279 does
      not match any entry for the received BitString in BIER header.




Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


      Set the Best-return-code to "No matching entry in forwarding
      table" and Go to section 4.3.

   o  If any FEC which get from the matched BIFT entry is not consistent
      with the FEC get from the FEC stack at the same position as
      entry's BitPosition in Header-H, Set the Best-return-code to
      "Mapping for this FEC is not the given BitPosition in BitString"
      and Go to section 4.3.

   o  If the DSMAP TLV carries Multipath Entropy Data Sub-TLV and if the
      BitString in Header-H carries more than one forward routed
      adjacency and each matches the BIFT entry.  Set the Best-return-
      code to "Invalid Multipath Info Request" and Go to section 4.3.
      Else, list the ECMP downstream neighbors to reach forward routed
      adjacency, calculate the Entropy considering the BitString in
      Header-H and Multipath Entropy Data Sub-TLV from received Echo
      Request.  Set the Best-return-code to 5 (Packet-Forward-Success).

   o  For all the forward-connected adjacencies and all the local-decap
      adjacencies which match the BIFT entry, FEC Change sub-TLV SHOULD
      be carried in DSMAP TLV and set the operation type filed in the
      FEC change sub-TLV to remove.

   o  For all the forward-routed adjacencies which match the BIFT entry,
      if the BIFT entry indicates that not the local decapsulation but
      continue forwarding the OAM packet, FEC change sub-TLV SHOULD NOT
      be carried in DSMAP TLV.  If the BIFT entry indicate that the
      local decapsulation the OAM packet, FEC change sub-TLV SHOULD be
      carried in DSMAP TLV, and set the operation type filed in the FEC
      change sub-TLV to remove.

   o  If the responder is BFER which matches the local-decap BIFT, and
      there are no more bits in BIER header BitString left for
      forwarding.Set the Best-return-code to "Replying router is the
      only BFER in BIER header BitString", and go to section 4.3.

   o  If the responder is BFER which match the local-decap BIFT, and
      there are more bits in the BitString left for forwarding.  Set the
      Best-return-code to " Replying router is one of the BFER in BIER
      header BitString", and go to section 4.3.

4.3.  Sending Echo Reply

   o  Message Type:2.

   o  Return Code:Best-return-code.

   o  The Proto :0.



Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   o  When the Best-return-code is "Replying BFR is one of the BFER in
      header BitString", it MUST include Responder BFER TLV.

   o  If the received Echo Request had DSMAP with Multipath Entropy Data
      Sub-TLV, Responder BFR MUST include DSMAP for each outgoing
      interface over which the packet will be replicated and include the
      respective Multipath Entropy Data Sub-TLV.

   o  If the received Echo Request had DSMAP without Multipath Entropy
      Data Sub-TLV, Responder BFR MUST include DSMAP for each outgoing
      interface over which the packet will be replicated.

   o  When the Best-return-code is "Replying BFR is the only BFER in
      header BitString", it MUST include Responder BFER TLV.

   o  When the Reply mode in received Echo Request is set to " Reply via
      BIER packet", Responder appends BIER header listing the BitString
      with the BFIR's local-decap id and set the Proto to "OAM" and set
      the BFIR value to 0.

   o  When the Reply mode in received Echo Request is set to "Reply via
      IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet", Responder encapsulates with IP/UDP header.
      The UDP destination port MUST be set to TBD1 and source port MAY
      be randomly selected from the dynamic range of port numbers.  The
      source IP is any local address of the responder and destination IP
      is derived from Reply-To TLV.

4.4.  Receiving Echo Reply

   o  Initiator on receiving Echo Reply will use the Sender's Handle to
      match with Echo Request sent.  If no match is found, Initiator
      MUST ignore the Echo Reply.

   o  If receiving Echo Reply have Downstream Mapping, Initiator SHOULD
      copy the same to subsequent Echo Request(s).

   o  If one of the Echo Reply is received with Return Code as "Replying
      BFR is one of the BFER in header BitString", it SHOULD remove the
      BFER's local-decap ID from Target SI-BitString for any subsequent
      Echo Request.

5.  Security Considerations

   TBD.







Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document request UDP port TBD1 to be allocated by IANA for BIER-
   TE Echo.

   This document request the IANA for creation and management of below
   registries and sub-registries:

   Return codes defined in this document are the following:


      Value               value Meaning
     -----     --------------------------------------------------
      10      Replying BFR is not in the path to any target BFER
      11      Mapping for this FEC is not the given BitPosition in BitString

6.1.  TLVs

   The TLVs and Sub-TLVs requested by this document for IANA
   consideration are the following:

6.2.  Target FEC Stack


               Sub-Type                        Value Field
              ----------             ----------------------------
                29                      BIER-TE forward-connected
                30                      BIER-TE local-decap
                31                      BIER-TE forward-routed

6.3.  Downstream Detailed Mapping Sub-TLVs

   This section defines the optional Sub-TLVs that can be included in
   Downstream Mapping TLV.


              Sub-TLV Type                        Value
              ----------             ----------------------------
                 3                         FEC stack change

7.  Normative references

   [I-D.ietf-bier-ping]
              Kumar, N., Pignataro, C., Akiya, N., Zheng, L., Chen, M.,
              and G. Mirsky, "BIER Ping and Trace", draft-ietf-bier-
              ping-04 (work in progress), October 2018.





Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


   [I-D.ietf-bier-te-arch]
              Eckert, T., Cauchie, G., Braun, W., and M. Menth, "Traffic
              Engineering for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER-TE)",
              draft-ietf-bier-te-arch-01 (work in progress), October
              2018.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

   [RFC4379]  Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
              Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4379>.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
              "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.

   [RFC6424]  Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
              Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS
              Tunnels", RFC 6424, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6424>.

   [RFC8279]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., and S. Aldrin, "Multicast Using Bit Index
              Explicit Replication (BIER)", RFC 8279,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8279, November 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8279>.

   [RFC8296]  Wijnands, IJ., Ed., Rosen, E., Ed., Dolganow, A.,
              Tantsura, J., Aldrin, S., and I. Meilik, "Encapsulation
              for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) in MPLS and Non-
              MPLS Networks", RFC 8296, DOI 10.17487/RFC8296, January
              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8296>.

   [RFC8401]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Przygienda, T., Aldrin, S., and Z.
              Zhang, "Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER) Support via
              IS-IS", RFC 8401, DOI 10.17487/RFC8401, June 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8401>.

   [RFC8444]  Psenak, P., Ed., Kumar, N., Wijnands, IJ., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., Zhang, J., and S. Aldrin, "OSPFv2
              Extensions for Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)",
              RFC 8444, DOI 10.17487/RFC8444, November 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8444>.




Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           BIER-TE Ping and Trace            February 2019


Authors' Addresses

   Ran Chen
   ZTE Corporation

   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn


   Greg Mirsky
   ZTE Corporation

   Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com


   Shaofu Peng
   ZTE Corporation

   Email: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn

































Chen, et al.             Expires August 30, 2019               [Page 14]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/