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

Versions: 00 01 draft-ietf-mpls-remote-lsp-ping

Network Working Group                                     George Swallow
Internet Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Category: Standards Track
Expiration Date: September 2007
                                                              Vanson Lim
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                              March 2007


                             Proxy LSP Ping


               draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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/1id-abstracts.html

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


   Abstract

      This document defines a means of remotely initiating Multiprocal
      Label Switched Protocol Pings on Label Switched Paths.  A proxy
      ping request is sent to any Label Switching Routers along a Label
      Switched Path.  The primary motivations for this facility are
      first to limit the number of messages and related processing when
      using LSP Ping in large Point-to-Multipoint LSPs, and second to
      enable leaf to root tracing.



Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 1]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


Contents

 1      Introduction  ..............................................   3
 1.1    Conventions  ...............................................   3
 2      Proxy Ping Overview  .......................................   4
 3      Remote Echo / Reply Pprocedures  ...........................   5
 3.1    Procedures for the initiator  ..............................   5
 3.2    Procedures for the proxy LSR  ..............................   6
 3.2.1  Sending an MPLS proxy ping reply  ..........................   7
 3.2.2  Sending the MPLS echo requests  ............................   7
 4      Proxy Ping Request / Reply Messages  .......................   8
 4.1    Proxy Ping Request / Reply Message formats  ................   9
 4.2    Proxy Ping Request Message contents  .......................  10
 4.3    Proxy Ping Reply Message Contents  .........................  10
 5      Object formats  ............................................  11
 5.1    Proxy Echo Parameters Object  ..............................  11
 5.2    Previous Hop Object  .......................................  13
 6      Security Considerations  ...................................  13
 7      IANA Considerations  .......................................  13
 7.1    Message and Object Type Assignments  .......................  13
 7.2    Return Code Assignments  ...................................  14
 8      Acknowledgments  ...........................................  14
 9      References  ................................................  14
 9.1    Normative References  ......................................  14
 9.2    Informative References  ....................................  14
10      Authors' Addresses  ........................................  15
























Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 2]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


1. Introduction

   It is anticipated that very large Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Label
   Switched Paths (LSPs) will exist.  Further it is anticipated that
   many of the applications for P2MP tunnels will require OAM that is
   both rigorous and scalable.

   Suppose one wishes to trace a P2MP LSP to localize a fault which is
   affecting one egress or a set of egresses.  Suppose one follows the
   normal procedure for tracing - namely repeatedly pinging from the
   root, incrementing the TTL by one after each three or so pings.  Such
   a procedure has the potential for producing a large amount of pro-
   cessing at the P2MP-LSP midpoints and egresses.  It also could pro-
   duce an unwieldy number of replies back to the root.

   One alternative would be to begin sending pings from points at or
   near the affected egress(es) and working backwards toward the root.
   The TTL could be held constant as say two, limiting the the number of
   responses to the number of next-next-hops of the point where the ping
   was initiated.

   The above procedure does require that the root know the previous-hop
   node to the one which was pinged on the prior iteration.  This infor-
   mation is readily available in [P2MP-TE].  This document provides a
   means for obtaining this information for [mLDP] as well as defining a
   means for remotely causing an MPLS echo request message to be sent
   down a Label Switched Path (LSP) or part of an LSP.

   While the motivaton for this document came from multicast scaling
   concerns, its applicability may be wider.  However other uses of this
   facility are beyond the scope of this document.  Further the discus-
   sion is cauched in terms of multipoint LSPs.


1.1. Conventions

   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 [KeyWords].

   The term "Must Be Zero" (MBZ) is used in object descriptions for
   reserved fields.  These fields MUST be set to zero when sent and
   ignored on receipt.

   Based on context the terms leaf and egress are used interchangeably.
   Egress is used where consistency with [RFC4379] was deemed appropri-
   ate.  Receiver is used in the context of receiving protocol messages.




Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 3]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


   [Note (to be removed after assignments occur): <tba> = to be assigned
   by IANA]


2. Proxy Ping Overview

   Two new LSP Ping messages are defined for remote pinging, the MPLS
   proxy ping request and the MPLS proxy ping reply.

   A remote ping operation on a P2MP LSP involves at least three LSRs;
   in some scenarios none of these are the ingress (root) or an egress
   (leaf) of the LSP.

   We refer to these nodes with the following terms:

   Initiator  -  the node which initiates the ping operation by sending
                 an MPLS proxy ping request message

   Proxy LSR   - the node which is the destination of the MPLS proxy
                 request message and potential initiator of the MPLS
                 echo request

   Receiver(s) - the receivers of the MPLS echo request messages

   The initiator formats an MPLS proxy ping request message and sends it
   to the proxy LSR, a node it believes to be on the path of the LSP.
   This message specifies the MPLS echo request to be sent inband of the
   LSP.  It may also request the proxy LSR to acknowledge the receipt of
   the proxy ping request message and/or respond with the address of the
   previous hop, i.e. the LSR upstream of it on this LSP.

   The proxy LSR validates that it has a label mapping for the specified
   FEC and that it is authorized to send the specified MPLS echo request
   on behalf of the initiator.  Depending on the Reply Mode carried in
   the header of the proxy ping request message and the above results an
   MPLS remote echo reply message might be sent back to the initiator.
   This message may also communicate the address of the previous hop.

   If the proxy LSR has a label mapping for the FEC and and all autho-
   rization check have passed, the proxy LSR formats an MPLS echo
   request.  If the source address of the IP packet is not the initia-
   tor, it includes a ReplyTo object containing the initiator's address.
   It then sends it inband of the LSP.

   The receivers process the MPLS echo request as normal, sending their
   MPLS echo replies back to the initiator.





Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 4]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


3. Remote Echo / Reply Pprocedures

3.1. Procedures for the initiator

   The initiator creates an MPLS proxy ping request message.

   The message MUST contain a Target FEC Stack that describes the FEC
   being tested.

   [Note for the current version of the ID, the FEC stack is limited to
   a single FEC as we have not yet fully considered the operational and
   security impacts of permitting more FECs]

   The message MUST contain a Proxy Echo Parameters object.  The address
   type is set to either IPv4 or IPv6.  The Destination IP Address is
   set to the value to be used in the MPLS echo request packet. If the
   Address Type is IPv4, an address from the range 127/8.  If the
   Address Type is IPv6, an address from the range
   0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104.  By default the source address will be set to
   an address of the proxy LSR.

   The Reply mode and Global Flags of the Proxy Echo Parameters object
   are set to the values to be used in the MPLS echo request message
   header.  The Source UDP Port is set to the value to be used in the
   MPLS echo request packet.  The TTL is set to the value to be used in
   the outgoing MPLS label stack.  See section 5.2.2.2 for further
   details.

   Flags MAY be set to request the previous hop address and/or a down-
   stream mapping object from the proxy LSR.

   A list of Next Hop IP Addresses MAY be included to limit the next
   hops towards which the MPLS echo request message will be sent.

   Any of following objects MAY be included; these objects will be
   copied into the MPLS echo request messages:

            Pad
            Vendor Enterprise Number
            Reply TOS Byte
            P2MP Egress Identifier [McstPing]
            Echo Jitter TLV [McstPing]
            Vendor Private TLVs

   Downstream Mapping objects MAY be included.  These objects will be
   matched to the next hop address for inclusion in those particular
   MPLS echo request messages.




Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 5]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


   The message is then encapsulated in a UDP packet.  The source UDP
   port is chosen by the sender; the destination UDP port is set to
   3503.  The IP header is set as follows: the source IP address is a
   routable address of the sender; the destination IP address is a
   routable address of the midpoint.  The packet is then sent with the
   IP TTL is set to 255.


3.2. Procedures for the proxy LSR

   A proxy LSR that receives an MPLS proxy ping request message, parses
   the packet to ensure that it is a well-formed packet.  It checks that
   the TLVs that are not marked "Ignore" are understood.  If not, it
   sets the Return Code set to "Malformed echo request received" or "TLV
   not understood" (as appropriate), and the Subcode set to zero.  If
   the Reply Mode of the message header is not 0, an MPLS proxy ping
   reply message SHOULD be sent as described below.  In the latter case,
   the misunderstood TLVs (only) are included in an Errored TLVs object.

   The header fields Sender's Handle and Sequence Number are not exam-
   ined, but are saved to be included in the MPLS proxy ping reply and
   MPLS echo request messages.

   The proxy LSR validates that it has a label mapping for the specified
   FEC, it then determines if it is an egress, transit or bud node and
   sets the Return Code as appropriate.

   The proxy LSR then determines if it is authorized to send the speci-
   fied MPLS echo request on behalf of the initiator.  An LSR MUST be
   capable of filtering addresses to validate initiators.  Other filters
   on FECs or MPLS echo request contents MAY be applied.  If a filter
   has been invoked (i.e. configured) and an address does not pass the
   filter, then an MPLS echo request message MUST NOT be sent, and the
   event SHOULD be logged.  An MPLS proxy ping reply message may be sent
   with a Return Code of <tba>, "Remote Ping not authorized".

   If the "Request for Previous Hop" flag is set, a PHOP Address Object
   is formatted for inclusion in the MPLS proxy ping reply.  If the pre-
   vious HOP is unknown or ambiguous the Address Type is set to "No
   Address Supplied".

   If there is a list of Next Hop addresses in the Proxy Echo Parameters
   object, each address is examined to determine if it is a next hop for
   this FEC.  If any are not, those addresses are deleted from the list.
   The updated Proxy Echo Parameters object is included in the MPLS
   proxy ping reply.

   If the "Request for Downstream Mapping" flag is set the LSR formats a



Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 6]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


   Downstream Mapping object for each interface that the MPLS echo
   request will be sent out.

   If the Reply Mode of the message header is not 0 or 5, an MPLS remote
   echo reply message SHOULD be sent as described below.


3.2.1. Sending an MPLS proxy ping reply

   The Reply mode, Sender's Handle and Sequence Number fields are copied
   from the proxy ping request message.  Various objects are included as
   specified above.  The message is encapsulated in a UDP packet.  The
   source IP address is a routable address of the proxy LSR; the source
   port is the well-known UDP port for LSP ping.  The destination IP
   address and UDP port are copied from the source IP address and UDP
   port of the echo request.  The IP TTL is set to 255.


3.2.2. Sending the MPLS echo requests

   A base MPLS echo request is formed as decribed in the next section.
   The section below that describes how the base MPLS echo request is
   sent on each interface.


3.2.2.1. Forming the base MPLS echo request

   A Next_Hop_List is created as follows.  If Next Hop addresses were
   included in the received Proxy Parameters object, the Next_Hop_List
   is copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters object as adjusted above.
   Otherwise, the list is set to all the next hops to which the FEC
   would be forwarded.

   The proxy LSR then formats an MPLS echo request message.  The Global
   Flags and Reply Mode are copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters
   object.  The Return Code and Return Subcode are set to zero.

   The Sender's Handle and Sequence Number are copied from the remote
   echo request message.

   The TimeStamp Sent is set to the time-of-day (in seconds and
   microseconds) that the echo request is sent.  The TimeStamp Received
   is set to zero.

   A ReplyTo object (see [SelfTest]) containing the initiator's address
   is included.

   The following objects are copied from the MPLS proxy ping request



Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 7]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


   message.  Note that of these, only the Target FEC Stack is REQUIRED
   to appear in the MPLS proxy ping request message.

            Target FEC Stack
            Pad
            Vendor Enterprise Number
            Reply TOS Byte
            P2MP Egress Identifier [McstPing]
            Echo Jitter TLV [McstPing]
            Vendor Private TLVs

   The message is then encapsulated in a UDP packet.  The source UDP
   port is copied from the Proxy Echo Parameters object.  destination
   ports are copied from the proxy ping request message.

   The source IP address is set to a routable address of the proxy LSR.
   Per usual the TTL of the IP packet is set to 1.


3.2.2.2. Per interface sending procedures

   The proxy LSR now iterates through the Next_Hop_List modifying the
   base MPLS echo request to form the MPLS echo request packet which is
   then sent on that particular interface.

   For each next hop address, the outgoing label stack is determained.
   The TTL for the label corresponding to the FEC in the FEC stack is
   set such that the TTL on the wire will be one less than the TTL spec-
   ified in the proxy ping request message.  If any additional labels
   are pushed onto the stack, their TTLs are set to 255.

   If the MPLS proxy ping request message contained Downstream Mapping
   objects, they are examined.  If the Downstream IP Address matches the
   next hop address that Downstream Mapping object is included in the
   MPLS echo request.

   The packet is then transmitted on this interface.


4. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Messages

   Two new LSP Ping messages are defined for remote pinging, the MPLS
   proxy ping request message and the MPLS proxy ping reply.








Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 8]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


4.1. Proxy Ping Request / Reply Message formats

   Except where noted, the definitions of all fields in the messages are
   identical to those found in [LSP-PING].  The messages have the fol-
   lowing format:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Version Number        |         MUST Be Zero          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Message Type |   Reply mode  |  Return Code  | Return Subcode|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Sender's Handle                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                        Sequence Number                        |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                            TLVs ...                           |
      .                                                               .
      .                                                               .
      .                                                               .
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Version Number

         The Version Number is currently 1.  (Note: the Version Number is
         to be incremented whenever a change is made that affects the
         ability of an implementation to correctly parse or process an
         MPLS echo request/reply.  These changes include any syntactic or
         semantic changes made to any of the fixed fields, or to any TLV
         or sub-TLV assignment or format that is defined at a certain
         version number.  The Version Number may not need to be changed
         if an optional TLV or sub-TLV is added.)

      Message Type

         Type     Message
         ----     -------
            5     MPLS proxy ping request
            6     MPLS proxy ping reply










Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                    [Page 9]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


      Reply mode

         The reply modes are the same as [LSP-PING] with the addtion of
         value 5.  For completeness, the full list of reply modes
         follows:

         Value    Meaning
         -----    -------
             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
             5    Reply via an IPv4/IPv6 UDP packet only if the proxy
                  request is not fulfilled


4.2. Proxy Ping Request Message contents

   The MPLS proxy ping request message MAY contain the following
   objects:

          Type    Object
          ----    -----------
             1    Target FEC Stack
             2    Downstream Mapping
             3    Pad
             5    Vendor Enterprise Number
            10    Reply TOS Byte
           tba    Proxy Echo Parameters
           tba    PHOP Address
           tba    P2MP Egress Identifier [McstPing]
           tba    Echo Jitter TLV [McstPing]
                  Vendor Private TLVs


4.3. Proxy Ping Reply Message Contents

   The MPLS proxy ping reply message MAY contain the following objects:













Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 10]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


          Type    Object
          ----    -----------
             1    Target FEC Stack
             2    Downstream Mapping
             5    Vendor Enterprise Number
             9    Errored TLVs
           tba    Proxy Echo Parameters
           tba    PHOP Address
                  Vendor Private objects


5. Object formats

5.1. Proxy Echo Parameters Object

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Address Type |     Flags     |   Reply mode  |      TTL      |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |         Source UDP Port       |          Global Flags         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      :                      Destination IP Address                   :
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      :                                                               :
      :                      Next Hop IP Addresses                    :
      :                                                               :
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Address Type

         The type of address found in the in the Destination IP Address
         and Next Hop IP Addresses fields.  The type codes appear in the
         table below:

            Address Family   Type

             IPv4 Numbered     1
             IPv6 Numbered     3








Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 11]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


      Flags

         Request for Previous Hop        0x01

            When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply the PHOP
            address in the MPLS proxy ping reply message

         Request for Downstream Mapping  0x02

            When set this requests that the proxy LSR supply a
            Downstream Mapping object in the MPLS proxy ping reply
            message

      Reply mode

         The reply mode to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request message; the
         values are as specified in [RFC4379]

      TTL

         The TTL to be used in the label corresponding to the FEC in the
   MPLS Echo Request packet

      Source UDP Port

         The source UDP port to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request packet

      Global Flags

         The Global Flags to be sent in the MPLS Echo Request messge

      Destination IP Address

         If the Address Type is IPv4, an address from the range 127/8;
         If the Address Type is IPv6, an address from the range
         0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:127/104

      Next Hop IP Addresses

         A list of next hop address that the echo request message is to
         be sent towards










Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 12]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


5.2. Previous Hop Object

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Address Type |               MUST be Zero                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      :                    Previous Hop IP Address                    :
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Address Type

         A type code as specified in the table below:

            Type     Type of Address

              0        No Address Supplied
              1        IPv4
              3        IPv6


6. Security Considerations

   [To be written]


7. IANA Considerations

   [Not complete]


7.1. Message and Object Type Assignments

   This document makes the following codepoint assigments (pending IANA
   action):

       Registry             Codepoint    Purpose

       LSP Ping Message Type   tba       MPLS proxy ping request message
                               tba       MPLS proxy ping reply

       LSP Ping Object Type    tba       Proxy Echo Parameters
                               tba       PHOP Address








Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 13]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


7.2. Return Code Assignments

       Value    Meaning

         tba    Remote Ping not authorized
         tba    Failed Next Hops



8. Acknowledgments

9. References

9.1. Normative References

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

      [SelfTest] Swallow, G. et al., "LSR Self Test",
                 draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-self-test-06.txt, October 2005.

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

      [McstPing] Farrel, A. et al, "Detecting Data Plane Failures in
                 Point-to-Multipoint  MPLS Traffic Engineering -
                 Extensions to LSP Ping",
                 draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-02.txt, September 2006.


9.2. Informative References

      [P2MP-TE]  Aggarwal, R., et al., "Extensions to RSVP-TE for
                 Point-to-Multipoint TE LSPs",
                 draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-07.txt, January 2007.

      [mLDP]     Minei, I., et. al., "Label Distribution Protocol
                 Extensions for Point-to-Multipoint and
                 Multipoint-to-Multipoint Label Switched Paths"
                 draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp-02.txt, October 2006.










Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 14]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


10. Authors' Addresses

      George Swallow
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      1414 Massachusetts Ave
      Boxborough, MA 01719

      Email:  swallow@cisco.com


      Vanson Lim
      Cisco Systems, Inc.
      1414 Massachusetts Ave
      Boxborough, MA 01719

      Email:  vlim@cisco.com



Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assur-
   ances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt
   made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.









Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 15]


Internet Draft  draft-swallow-mpls-remote-lsp-ping-01.txt     March 2007


Full Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).  This document is subject to the
   rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as
   set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.






































Swallow & Lim                Standards Track                   [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/