draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00.txt		draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-01.txt
	Network Working Group M. Chen		Network Working Group M. Chen
	Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd		Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
	Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan		Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan
	Intended status: Standards Track Infinera		Intended status: Standards Track Infinera
	Expires: November 30, 2012 C. Pignataro		Expires: March 7, 2013 C. Pignataro
	R. Asati		R. Asati
	Cisco		Cisco
	May 29, 2012		September 3, 2012
	Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs		Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for IPv6 Pseudowire FECs
	draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-00		draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping		Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
	and Traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate		and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate
	data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs.		data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including Pseudowire (PW) LSPs.
	The PW LSP Ping and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified		The PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements, however, are not specified
	for IPv6 address usage.		for IPv6 address usage.
	This document extends the PW LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanisms so		This document extends the PW LSP Ping and traceroute mechanisms so
	they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379.		they can be used with IPv6 PWs, and updates RFC 4379.
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 47		skipping to change at page 1, line 47
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on November 30, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	skipping to change at page 2, line 24		skipping to change at page 2, line 24
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. IPv6 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3.1. IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping		Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping
	and Traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be		and traceroute are defined in [RFC4379]. These mechanisms can be
	used to detect and isolate data plane failures in all MPLS Label		used to detect data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched Paths
	Switched Paths (LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping		(LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping and traceroute
	and Traceroute elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address		elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage.
	usage.
	Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP		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		Ping and traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge
	(PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6		(PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6
	addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class		addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class
	(FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated,		(FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated,
	FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections		FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections
	3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the		3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the
	source and destination addresses of the target LDP session, and		source and destination addresses of the target LDP session, and
	currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered. Despite the fact		currently only IPv4 target LDP session is covered. Despite the fact
	that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV		that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV
	definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths		definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths
	of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields, or calculating the Length		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		of the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 target
	LDP session is used, these existing sub-TLVs can not therefore be		LDP session is used, therefore these existing sub-TLVs can not be
	used since the addresses will not fit. Additionally, all other sub-		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		TLVs are defined in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not
	the PW sub-TLVs.		the PW sub-TLVs.
	This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constraint the existing		This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain the existing
	PW FEC sub-TLVs for IPv4 LDP sessions, and extends the PW LSP Ping to		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		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).		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		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		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		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		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		IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the
	Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined		Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined
	for IPv6 in this document.		for IPv6 in this document.
	2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs		2. IPv4 Pseudowire Sub-TLVs
	This document updates Section 3.2 and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10		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.		of [RFC4379] as follows and as indicated in Section 4 and Section 6.
	This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity, confusion, and		This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity, confusion, and
	backwards compatibility issues.		backwards compatibility issues.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 21		skipping to change at page 5, line 21
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~		~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| PW ID |		| PW ID |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| PW Type | Must Be Zero |		| PW Type | Must Be Zero |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire		Figure 1: IPv6 FEC 128 Pseudowire
	IPv6 FEC 128 PW: TBD.		IPv6 FEC 128 PW Type: TBD. 2 octets.
	Length: it defines the length in octets of the value field of the		Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
	sub-TLV and its value is 38.		TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets.
	Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6		Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
	LDP session.		LDP session. 16 octets.
	Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6		Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
	LDP session.		LDP session. 16 octets.
	PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].		PW ID: Same as IPv4 FEC 128 Pseudowire [RFC4379].
	PW Type: Same as 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		3.2. IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire Sub-TLV
	IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC		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].		129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379].
	The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows:		The encoding of IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire is as follows:
	0 1 2 3		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		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
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	skipping to change at page 6, line 31		skipping to change at page 6, line 31
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |		| AII Type | TAII Length | TAII Value |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	~ TAII Value (continued) ~		~ TAII Value (continued) ~
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |		| TAII (cont.) | 0-3 octets of zero padding |
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire		Figure 2: IPv6 FEC 129 Pseudowire
	IPv6 FEC 129 PW: TBD.		IPv6 FEC 129 PW Type: TBD. 2 octets.
	The Length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII		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;		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.		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		Sender's PE IPv6 Address: The source IP address of the target IPv6
	LDP session.		LDP session. 16 octets.
	Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6		Remote PE IPv6 Address: The destination IP address of the target IPv6
	LDP session.		LDP session. 16 octets.
	The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire [RFC4379].		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.
	4. Summary of Changes		4. Summary of Changes
	Section 3.2 of [RFC4379] tabulates all the sub-TLVs for the Target		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		FEC Stack. Per the change described in Section 2 and Section 3, the
	table would show the following:		table would show the following:
	Sub-Type Length Value Field		Sub-Type Length Value Field
	-------- ------ -----------		-------- ------ -----------
	...		...
	skipping to change at page 8, line 13		skipping to change at page 8, line 18
	1 TBD2 IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire		1 TBD2 IPv6 "FEC 129" Pseudowire
	7. Security Considerations		7. Security Considerations
	This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security		This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security
	mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.		mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.
	8. Acknowledgements		8. Acknowledgements
	The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim,		The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim,
	Tom Petch, and Spike Curtis.		Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, and Loa Andersson.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol		[RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol
	Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,		Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379,
	February 2006.		February 2006.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6]		[I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6]
	Pignataro, C., Asati, R., Papneja, R., and V. Manral,		Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro,
	"Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-06		"Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07
	(work in progress), January 2012.		(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-08 (work in
			progress), August 2012.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Mach(Guoyi) Chen		Mach(Guoyi) Chen
	Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd		Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
	No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District		No. 3 Xinxi Road, Shang-di, Hai-dian District
	Beijing 100085		Beijing 100085
	China		China
	Email: mach@huawei.com		Email: mach@huawei.com
End of changes. 26 change blocks.
	33 lines changed or deleted		51 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/