[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv)
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6426
Network Working Group N. Bahadur
Internet-Draft R. Aggarwal
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks, Inc.
Expires: January 27, 2011 S. Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
E. Gray
Ericsson
July 26, 2010
MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification, Route Tracing and Adjacency
Verification
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00
Abstract
LSP-Ping is an existing and widely deployed OAM mechanism for MPLS
LSPs. This document describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP-
Ping can be used to perform OAM on MPLS-TP LSPs. It also clarifies
the procedures to be used for processing the OAM packets. Further,
it describes how LSP-Ping can be used to perform Connectivity
Verification, Route Tracing and Adjacency functions in MPLS-TP
networks.
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 January 27, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
Copyright (c) 2010 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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. LSP-Ping for MPLS-TP LSPs using IP encapsulation . . . . . 4
1.3. LSP-Ping for MPLS-TP LSPs using non-IP encapsulation . . . 4
2. LSP-Ping extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. New address type for Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Source Address TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. MEP and MIP Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Identifying Statically provisioned LSPs and PWs . . . . . 6
2.4.1. Static LSP Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.2. Static Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Performing LSP-Ping over MPLS-TP LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation, over ACH . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Non-IP based LSP-Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Reverse path Connectivity verification . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. P2MP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Performing LSP Traceroute over MPLS-TP LSPs . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. LSP Traceroute with IP encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Non-IP based LSP Traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Ingress node procedure for sending echo request
packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Ingress node procedure for receiving echo response
packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Transit and egress node procedure . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. P2MP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. ECMP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
1. Introduction
LSP-Ping [RFC4379] is an OAM mechanism for MPLS LSPs. This document
describes extensions to LSP-Ping so that LSP-Ping can be used for on-
demand monitoring of MPLS-TP LSPs. It also clarifies the procedures
to be used for processing the OAM packets. This document describes
how LSP-Ping can be used to perform on-demand Connectivity
Verification, Route Tracing and Adjacency functions required in
[RFC5860] and specified in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework].
1.1. 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].
1.2. LSP-Ping for MPLS-TP LSPs using IP encapsulation
LSP-Ping requires IP addressing on the egress and transit LSRs for
performing OAM on MPLS signaled LSPs and pseudowires. In particular,
in these cases the LSP-Ping packets generated by an ingress LSR are
encapsulated in an IP/UDP header with the destination address from
the 127/8 range and then encapsulated in the MPLS label stack
([RFC4379] , [RFC5884]). Egress LSRs use the presence of the 127/8
destination address to identify the OAM packets and rely further on
the UDP port number to determine whether the packet is a LSP-Ping
packet. It is to be noted that this determination does not require
IP forwarding capabilities. It requires the presence of an IP host
stack which enables egress LSRs to process packets with a destination
address from the 127/8 range. [RFC1122] allocates the 127/8 range as
"Internal host loopback address" and [RFC1812] states that "a router
SHOULD NOT forward, except over a loopback interface, any packet that
has a destination address on network 127".
1.3. LSP-Ping for MPLS-TP LSPs using non-IP encapsulation
In certain MPLS-TP deployment scenarios IP addressing might not be
available or it may be preferred to use non-IP encapsulation for LSP-
Ping and BFD packets. In such scenarios, LSP-Ping SHOULD be run
without IP addressing, using the ACH channel type specified in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures].
Section 3.3 and Section 4.2 describe the theory of operation for
performing LSP-Ping over MPLS-TP LSPs with a non-IP encapsulation.
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
2. LSP-Ping extensions
2.1. New address type for Downstream Mapping TLV
[RFC4379] defines the Downstream Mapping TLV. This document defines
the following new Address type which is added to the Downstream
Mapping TLV:
Type # Address Type K Octets
------ -------------- --------
0 Not Applicable 8
Figure 1: Downstream Mapping TLV new address type
The new address type indicates that no address is present in the
Downstream Mapping TLV. Multipath type SHOULD be set to 0 (no
multipath) when using this address type.
When this address type is used, on receipt of a LSP-Ping echo
request, interface verification MUST be bypassed. Thus the receiving
node SHOULD only perform mpls label control-plane/data-plane
consistency checks.
The new address type is also applicable to the Detailed Downstream
Mapping TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap].
2.2. Source Address TLV
When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, without IP encapsulation,
there MAY be a need to identify the source address of the packet.
This source address will be specified via the Source Address TLV,
being defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]. A LSP-Ping packet MUST
NOT include more than 1 source address TLV. The source address MUST
specify the address of the originator of the packet. If more than 1
such TLV is present in a LSP-Ping request packet, then an error of 1
(Malformed echo request received), [ Section 3.1 [RFC4379] ], MUST be
returned, if it is possible to unambiguously identify the source of
the packet.
2.3. MEP and MIP Identifier
When sending LSP-Ping packets using ACH, there MAY be a need to
identify the maintenance end point (MEP) and/or the maintenance
intermediate point (MIP) being monitored
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone]. The MEP/MIP identifiers defined in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers] MAY be carried in the ACH TLVs
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv] for identification. Only one identifier
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
(MEP or MIP) MUST be present in a packet. The MEP/MIP identifiers
associated with the packet MUST be checked for the MPLS-TP LSP path/
section that is being monitored. If the identifier does not match
the LSP path/section, then the packet MUST be dropped.
2.4. Identifying Statically provisioned LSPs and PWs
[RFC4379] specifies how an MPLS LSP under test may be identified in
an echo request. A Target FEC Stack TLV is used to identify the LSP.
In order to identify a statically provisioned LSP and PW, new target
FEC stack sub-TLVs are being defined. The new sub-TLVs are assigned
sub-type identifiers as follows, and are described in the following
sections.
Sub-Type # Length Value Field
---------- ------ -----------
TBD 24 Static LSP
TBD 24 Static Pseudowire
Figure 2: New target FEC sub-types
2.4.1. Static LSP Sub-TLV
The format of the Static LSP sub-TLV value field is specified in the
following figure. The value fields are taken from the definitions in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers].
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Tunnel Number | LSP Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Tunnel Number | Must be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Static LSP FEC Sub-TLV
The Source global ID and Destination Global ID MAY be set to 0. When
set to zero, the field is not applicable.
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
2.4.2. Static Pseudowire Sub-TLV
The format of the Static PW sub-TLV value field is specified in the
following figure.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source AC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Global ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Node ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination AC-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Static PW FEC Sub-TLV
The Source global ID and Destination Global ID MAY be set to 0. When
set to zero, the field is not applicable. The Global ID and Node ID
fields are taken from the definitions in
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]. The AC-ID definitions are taken from
[RFC5003].
3. Performing LSP-Ping over MPLS-TP LSPs
This section specifies how LSP-Ping ping can be used in the context
of MPLS-TP LSPs. The LSP-Ping ping function meets the Connectivity
Verification requirement specified in [RFC5860]. This function
SHOULD be performed on-demand. This function SHOULD be performed
between End Points (MEPs) and Intermediate Points (MIPs) of PWs and
LSPs, and between End Points of PWs, LSPs and Sections. In order for
the LSP-Ping packet to be processed at the desired MIP, the TTL of
the MPLS label should be set such that it expires at the MIP to be
probed.
3.1. LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation
LSP-Ping packets, as specified in [RFC4379], are sent over the MPLS
LSP for which OAM is being performed and contain an IP/UDP packet
within them. The IP header is not used for forwarding (since LSP
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
forwarding is done using MPLS label switching). The IP header is
used mainly for addressing and can be used in the context of MPLS-TP
LSPs. This form of LSP-Ping OAM MUST be supported for MPLS-TP LSPs
when IP addressing is in use.
The LSP-Ping echo response message MUST be sent on the reverse path
of the LSP. The reply MUST contain IP/UDP headers followed by the
LSP-Ping payload. The destination address in the IP header MUST be
set to that of the sender of the echo request message. The source
address in the IP address MUST be set to a valid address of the
replying node.
3.2. LSP-Ping with IP encapsulation, over ACH
IP encapsulated LSP-Ping packets MAY be sent over the MPLS LSP using
control channel (ACH). IP ACH type specified in [RFC4385] MUST be
used in such a case. The IP header is used mainly for addressing and
can be used in the context of MPLS-TP LSPs.
The LSP-Ping echo response message SHOULD be sent on the reverse path
of the LSP using ACH and SHOULD be IP encapsulated. The destination
address in the IP header MUST be set to that of the sender of the
echo request message. The source address in the IP address MUST be
set to a valid address of the replying node.
3.3. Non-IP based LSP-Ping
The OAM procedures defined in [RFC4379] require the use of IP
addressing and in some cases IP routing to perform OAM functions.
When the ACH header is used, IP addressing and routing is not needed.
This section describes procedures for performing lsp-ping without a
dependency on IP addressing and routing.
When using LSP-Ping over the ACH header, the LSP-Ping Reply mode
[RFC4379] in the LSP-Ping echo request MUST be set to 4 (Reply via
application level control channel).
The ingress node MAY attach a Source Address TLV (Section 2.2) to
identify the node originating the request.
The LSP-Ping reply message MUST be sent on the reverse path of the
LSP using ACH. The LSP-Ping payload MUST directly follow the ACH
header (and any ACH TLVs) and no IP and/or UDP headers MUST be
attached. The responding node MAY attach a Source Address TLV to
identify the node sending the response.
If a node receives an MPLS echo request packet over ACH, without IP/
UDP headers and if that node does not have a return MPLS LSP path to
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
the echo request source, then the node MUST drop the echo request
packet and not attempt to send a response.
3.4. Reverse path Connectivity verification
For bi-directional LSPs, when the egress sends the echo response, the
egress MAY attach the target FEC stack TLV [RFC4379] in the echo
response. The ingress (on receipt of the echo response) can use the
FEC stack TLV to perform reverse path connectivity verification. For
co-routed bi-directional LSPs, the target FEC stack used for LSP-Ping
will be the same in both the forward and reverse path of the LSP.
For associated bi-directional LSPs, the target FEC stack will be
different for the reverse path.
On receipt of the echo response, the ingress MUST perform the
following checks:
1. Perform interface and label-stack validation to ensure that the
packet is received on the reverse path of the bi-directional LSP
2. If the target FEC stack is present in the echo response, then
perform FEC validation.
If any of the validations fail, then the ingress MUST drop the echo
response and report an error.
3.5. P2MP Considerations
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping] describes how LSP-Ping can be used for
OAM on P2MP LSPs with IP encapsulation. This MUST be supported for
MPLS-TP P2MP LSPs when IP addressing is used. When IP addressing is
not used, then the procedures described in Section 3.3 can be applied
to P2MP MPLS-TP LSPs as well.
4. Performing LSP Traceroute over MPLS-TP LSPs
This section specifies how LSP-Ping traceroute can be used in the
context of MPLS-TP LSPs. The LSP-Ping traceroute function meets the
Adjacency and Route Tracing requirement specified in [RFC5860]. This
function SHOULD be performed on-demand. This function SHOULD be
performed between End Points and Intermediate Points of PWs and LSPs,
and between End Points of PWs, LSPs and Sections.
When performing lsp-ping traceroute, the ingress node inserts a
Downstream Mapping TLV to get the downstream node information and to
enable LSP verification along the transit nodes. The Downstream
Mapping TLV can be used as is for performing the traceroute. If IP
addressing is not in use, then the Address Type field in the
Downstream Mapping TLV can be set to "Not applicable" (Section 2.1).
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
The Downstream Mapping TLV address type field can be extended to
include other address types as need be.
4.1. LSP Traceroute with IP encapsulation
The mechanics of LSP-Ping traceroute are similar to those described
for ping in Section 3.1. Traceroute packets sent by the LSP ingress
MUST follow procedures described in [RFC4379]. This form of LSP-Ping
OAM MUST be supported for MPLS-TP LSPs, when IP addressing is used.
4.2. Non-IP based LSP Traceroute
This section describes the procedures for performing LSP traceroute
when using the ACH header and without any dependency on IP
addressing. The procedures specified in Section 3.3 with regards to
Source Address TLV, MEP/MIP identifiers apply to LSP traceroute as
well.
4.2.1. Ingress node procedure for sending echo request packets
Traceroute packets sent by the LSP ingress MUST adhere to the format
described in Section 3.3. MPLS-TTL expiry (as described in
[RFC4379]) will be used to direct the packets to specific nodes along
the LSP path.
4.2.2. Ingress node procedure for receiving echo response packets
The LSP-Ping traceroute responses will be received on the LSP itself
and the presence of an ACH header with channel type of LSP-Ping is an
indicator that the packet contains LSP-ping payload.
4.2.3. Transit and egress node procedure
When a echo request reaches the transit or egress, the presence of
the ACH channel type of LSP-Ping will indicate that the packet
contains LSP-Ping data. The LSP-Ping data, the label stack and the
MEP/MIP identifier should be sufficient to identify the LSP
associated with the echo request packet. If there is an error and
the node is unable to identify the LSP on which the echo response
would to be sent, the node MUST drop the echo request packet and not
send any response back. All responses MUST always be sent on a LSP
path using the ACH header and ACH channel type of LSP-Ping.
4.3. P2MP Considerations
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping] describes how LSP-Ping can be used for
OAM on P2MP LSPs. This MUST be supported for MPLS-TP P2MP LSPs when
IP addressing is used. When IP addressing is not used, then the
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
procedures described in Section 4.2 can be applied to P2MP MPLS-TP
LSPs as well.
4.4. ECMP Considerations
LSP-Ping using ACH SHOULD NOT be used when there is ECMP (equal cost
multiple paths) for a given LSP. The addition of the additional ACH
header may modify the hashing behavior for OAM packets which may
result in incorrect monitoring of path taken by data traffic.
5. Applicability
The non-IP addressing based procedures specified in this document
apply only to MPLS-TP LSPs. They also apply to PWs when IP
encapsulation is not desired. However, when IP addressing is used,
as in non MPLS-TP LSPs, procedures specified in [RFC4379] MUST be
used.
6. Security Considerations
The draft does not introduce any new security considerations. Those
discussed in [RFC4379] are also applicable to this document.
7. IANA Considerations
Section 2.4 defines 2 new sub-TLV types for inclusion within the LSP
Ping [RFC4379] Target FEC Stack TLV.
IANA is requested to assign sub-type values to the following sub-TLVs
from the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-
TLVs" sub-registry.
- Static LSP
- Static Pseudowire
8. Contributing Authors
The following individuals also contributed to this document:
o Thomas D. Nadeau, BT
o Nurit Sprecher, Nokia Siemens Networks
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
o Yaacov Weingarten, Nokia Siemens Networks
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures]
Bahadur, N., Aggarwal, R., Ward, D., Nadeau, T., Sprecher,
N., and Y. Weingarten, "LSP-Ping and BFD encapsulation
over ACH", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-00
(work in progress), March 2010.
[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.
[RFC4385] Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
"Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap]
Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for
performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels",
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-05 (work in
progress), May 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping]
Yasukawa, S., Farrel, A., Ali, Z., Swallow, G., Nadeau,
T., and S. Saxena, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in
Point-to-Multipoint Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) -
Extensions to LSP Ping", draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-10
(work in progress), March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv]
Boutros, S., Bryant, S., Sivabalan, S., Swallow, G., Ward,
D., and V. Manral, "Definition of ACH TLV Structure",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv-02 (work in progress),
March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers]
Bocci, M. and G. Swallow, "MPLS-TP Identifiers",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-02 (work in progress),
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
March 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework]
Allan, D., Busi, I., Niven-Jenkins, B., Fulignoli, A.,
Hernandez-Valencia, E., Levrau, L., Mohan, D., Sestito,
V., Sprecher, N., Helvoort, H., Vigoureux, M., Weingarten,
Y., and R. Winter, "MPLS-TP OAM Framework",
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-07 (work in progress),
April 2010.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone]
Sprecher, N., "A Thesaurus for the Terminology used in
Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)
drafts/RFCs and ITU-T's Transport Network
Recommendations.", draft-ietf-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone-02
(work in progress), May 2010.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.
[RFC5003] Metz, C., Martini, L., Balus, F., and J. Sugimoto,
"Attachment Individual Identifier (AII) Types for
Aggregation", RFC 5003, September 2007.
[RFC5860] Vigoureux, M., Ward, D., and M. Betts, "Requirements for
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in MPLS
Transport Networks", RFC 5860, May 2010.
[RFC5884] Aggarwal, R., Kompella, K., Nadeau, T., and G. Swallow,
"Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) for MPLS Label
Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 5884, June 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Nitin Bahadur
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: nitinb@juniper.net
URI: www.juniper.net
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft MPLS on-demand Connectivity Verification July 2010
Rahul Aggarwal
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
US
Phone: +1 408 745 2000
Email: rahul@juniper.net
URI: www.juniper.net
Sami Boutros
Cisco Systems, Inc.
3750 Cisco Way
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Phone:
Fax:
Email: sboutros@cisco.com
URI:
Eric Gray
Ericsson
900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
US
Phone: +1 978 275 7470
Fax:
Email: eric.gray@ericsson.com
URI:
Bahadur, et al. Expires January 27, 2011 [Page 14]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/