draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-04.txt   rfc6829.txt 
Network Working Group M. Chen Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Chen
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Request for Comments: 6829 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Updates: 4379 (if approved) P. Pan Updates: 4379 P. Pan
Intended status: Standards Track Infinera Category: Standards Track Infinera
Expires: May 30, 2013 C. Pignataro ISSN: 2070-1721 C. Pignataro
R. Asati R. Asati
Cisco Cisco
November 26, 2012 January 2013
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for Pseudowire FECs Advertised over IPv6 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping for
draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-pw-lsp-ping-04 Pseudowire Forwarding Equivalence Classes (FECs) Advertised over IPv6
Abstract Abstract
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and isolate Ping and traceroute mechanisms are commonly used to detect and
data plane failures in all MPLS LSPs including LSPs used for each isolate data-plane failures in all MPLS LSPs, including LSPs used for
direction of an MPLS Pseudowire (PW). The LSP Ping and traceroute each direction of an MPLS Pseudowire (PW). However, the LSP Ping and
elements used for PWs, however, are not specified for IPv6 address traceroute elements used for PWs are not specified for IPv6 address
usage. 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 PWs that are setup and maintained using IPv6 they can be used with PWs that are set up and maintained using IPv6
LDP sessions, and updates RFC 4379. LDP sessions. This document updates RFC 4379.
Requirements Language
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 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the Status of This Memo
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This is an Internet Standards Track document.
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2013. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6829.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2013 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
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Summary of Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping Multiprotocol 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 data plane failures in all MPLS Label Switched Paths used to detect data-plane failures in all MPLS LSPs, including
(LSPs) including Pseudowires (PWs). The PW LSP Ping and traceroute Pseudowires (PWs). However, the PW LSP Ping and traceroute elements
elements, however, are not specified for IPv6 address usage. are not specified for IPv6 address usage.
Specifically, the PW FEC sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Specifically, the PW Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC) sub-TLVs for
Ping and traceroute mechanism are defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge the Target FEC Stack in the LSP Ping and traceroute mechanism are
(PEs) routers, and are not applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 defined only for IPv4 Provider Edge (PE) routers and are not
addresses. Three PW related Target Forwarding Equivalence Class applicable for the case where PEs use IPv6 addresses. Three PW-
(FEC) sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128 Pseudowire-Deprecated, related Target FEC sub-TLVs are currently defined (FEC 128
FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129 Pseudowire, see Sections Pseudowire-Deprecated, FEC 128 Pseudowire-Current, and FEC 129
3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These sub-TLVs contain the Pseudowire, see Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]). These
source and destination addresses of the LDP session, and currently sub-TLVs contain the source and destination addresses of the LDP
only an IPv4 LDP session is covered. Despite the fact that the PE IP session, and currently only an IPv4 LDP session is covered. Despite
address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV definition, this can be the fact that the PE IP address family is not explicit in the sub-TLV
inferred indirectly by examining the lengths of the Sender's/Remote definition, this can be inferred indirectly by examining the lengths
PE Address fields, or calculating the Length of the sub-TLVs (see of the Sender's/Remote PE Address fields or calculating the length of
Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 LDP session is used, the sub-TLVs (see Section 3.2 of [RFC4379]). When an IPv6 LDP
therefore these existing sub-TLVs can not be used since the addresses session is used, these existing sub-TLVs cannot be used since the
will not fit. Additionally, all other sub-TLVs are defined in pairs, addresses will not fit. Additionally, all other sub-TLVs are defined
one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not the PW sub-TLVs. in pairs, one for IPv4 and another for IPv6, but not the PW sub-TLVs.
This document updates [RFC4379] to explicitly constrain 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 indicate "IPv4"
also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 and also by defining two new Target FEC sub-TLVs (FEC 128 Pseudowire
sub-TLV and FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV) to extend the IPv6 sub-TLV and FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 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 IPv6 usage when an IPv6
IPv6 LDP session [I-D.ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6] is used to signal the LDP session [MPLS-LDP] is used to signal the Pseudowire. Note that
Pseudowire. Note that FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined FEC 128 Pseudowire (Deprecated) is not defined for IPv6 in this
for IPv6 in this document. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs 2. Pseudowire IPv4 Target FEC Stack 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 Sections 4 and 6. This
This is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion, and to is done to avoid any potential ambiguity and confusion and to clarify
clarify that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses. Note that the that these TLVs carry only IPv4 addresses. Note that the changes are
changes are limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic limited to the names of fields; there are no semantic changes.
changes.
Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and Sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] list the PW sub-TLVs and
state: state:
"FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated) "FEC 128" Pseudowire (Deprecated)
"FEC 128" Pseudowire "FEC 128" Pseudowire
"FEC 129" Pseudowire "FEC 129" Pseudowire
These names and titles are now changed to: These names and titles are now changed to:
"FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated) "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
"FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
"FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, these three Additionally, when referring to the PE addresses, Sections 3.2.8
sections state: through 3.2.10 of [RFC4379] state:
Sender's PE Address Sender's PE Address
Remote PE Address Remote PE Address
These are now updated to say: These are now updated to say:
Sender's PE IPv4 Address Sender's PE IPv4 Address
Remote PE IPv4 Address Remote PE IPv4 Address
3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs 3. Pseudowire IPv6 Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs
3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire 3.1. FEC 128 Pseudowire
FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC The FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has a structure consistent with
128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of [RFC4379]. the FEC 128 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.9 of
The encoding of FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV is as follows: [RFC4379]. The encoding of the FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type | Length | | FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW ID | | PW ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PW Type | Must Be Zero | | PW Type | Must Be Zero |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv6 Figure 1: FEC 128 Pseudowire - IPv6
FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type: TBD1. 2 octets. FEC 128 PW IPv6 Type: 24. 2 octets.
Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub- Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
TLV and its value is 38. 2 octets. 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. 16 octets. 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. 16 octets. LDP session. 16 octets.
PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379]. PW ID: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379]. PW Type: Same as FEC 128 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire 3.2. FEC 129 Pseudowire
FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has the consistent structure with FEC The FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 sub-TLV has a structure consistent with
129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of [RFC4379]. the FEC 129 Pseudowire sub-TLV as described in Section 3.2.10 of
The encoding of FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 is as follows: [RFC4379]. The encoding of FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv6 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type | Length | | FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~ ~ Sender's PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~ ~ Remote PE IPv6 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 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: FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv6 Figure 2: FEC 129 Pseudowire - IPv6
FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type: TBD2. 2 octets. FEC 129 PW IPv6 Type: 25. 2 octets.
Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub- Length: Defines the length in octets of the value field of the sub-
TLV. 2 octets TLV. 2 octets
The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI length + SAII length + TAII The length of this TLV is 40 + AGI (Attachment Group Identifier)
length. Padding is used to make the total length a multiple of 4; length + SAII (Source Attachment Individual Identifier) length + TAII
the length of the padding is not included in the Length field. (Target Attachment Individual Identifier) 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.
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. 16 octets. 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. 16 octets. LDP session. 16 octets.
The other fields are same as FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379]. The other fields are the same as FEC 129 Pseudowire IPv4 [RFC4379].
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 Sections 2 and 3, the table
table would show the following: would show the following:
Sub-Type Length Value Field Sub-Type Length Value Field
-------- ------ ----------- -------- ------ -----------
... ...
9 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (deprecated) 9 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
10 14 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 10 14 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
11 16+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4 11 16+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
... ...
TBD1 38 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6 24 38 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
TBD2 40+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6 25 40+ "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
5. Operation 5. Operation
This document does not define any new procedures. The process This document does not define any new procedures. The process
described in [RFC4379] MUST be used. described in [RFC4379] MUST be used.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to perform the following assignments in the "Multi- IANA has made the following assignments in the "Multi-Protocol Label
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters"
Parameters" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry. registry.
[RFC Editor: To be REMOVED prior to publication. This registration
should take place at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xml#mpls-lsp-ping-parameters-7>]
The following Sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two The following sub-TLV changes, which comprise three updates and two
additions, are made for the TLV Type 1 "Target FEC Stack" in the additions, are made for the TLV Type 1 "Target FEC Stack" in the
aforementioned sub-registry. "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-registry.
Update the names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs, adding The names of the Value fields of these three Sub-TLVs have been
the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and update the Reference to updated to include the "IPv4" qualifier (see Section 2), and the
also point to this document: Reference has been updated to point to this document:
Type Sub-Type Value Field Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- ----------- ---- -------- -----------
1 9 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated) 1 9 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 (Deprecated)
1 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4 1 10 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv4
1 11 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4 1 11 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv4
Create two new entries for the Sub-Type field of Target FEC TLV (see Two new entries for the Sub-Type field of the Target FEC TLV (see
Section 3): Section 3) have been created:
Type Sub-Type Value Field Type Sub-Type Value Field
---- -------- ----------- ---- -------- -----------
1 TBD1 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6 1 24 "FEC 128" Pseudowire - IPv6
1 TBD2 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6 1 25 "FEC 129" Pseudowire - IPv6
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
This draft does not introduce any new security issues, the security This document does not introduce any new security issues; the
mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here. security mechanisms defined in [RFC4379] apply here.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge review and comments of Vanson Lim, The authors gratefully acknowledge the review and comments of Vanson
Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella. Lim, Tom Petch, Spike Curtis, Loa Andersson, and Kireeti Kompella.
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] [MPLS-LDP] Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro,
Asati, R., Manral, V., Papneja, R., and C. Pignataro, "Updates to LDP for IPv6", Work in Progress, June 2012.
"Updates to LDP for IPv6", draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-07
(work in progress), June 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
Ping Pan Ping Pan
Infinera Infinera
US US
Email: ppan@infinera.com EMail: ppan@infinera.com
Carlos Pignataro Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road 7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US US
Email: cpignata@cisco.com EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Rajiv Asati Rajiv Asati
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
7025-6 Kit Creek Road 7025-6 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
US US
Email: rajiva@cisco.com EMail: rajiva@cisco.com
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
129 lines changed or deleted 119 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/