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/