draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-03.txt 
Network Working Group N. Bahadur Network Working Group N. Bahadur
Internet-Draft K. Kompella Internet-Draft K. Kompella
Updates: RFC4379 Juniper Networks, Inc. Updates: RFC4379 Juniper Networks, Inc.
(if approved) G. Swallow (if approved) G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: August 5, 2009 February 1, 2009 Expires: January 12, 2010 July 11, 2009
Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-02 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-03
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 5, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
publication of this document. Please review these documents Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect and restrictions with respect to this document.
to this document.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute This document describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute
over mpls tunnels and for traceroute of stitched mpls LSPs. The over mpls tunnels and for traceroute of stitched mpls LSPs. The
techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform
traceroute FEC validation and path discovery for a LSP that goes over traceroute FEC validation and path discovery for a LSP that goes over
other mpls tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document describes other mpls tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document describes
enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379). enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379).
These enhancements along with other procedures outlined in this These enhancements along with other procedures outlined in this
document can be used to trace such LSPs. document can be used to trace such LSPs.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. New Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. New Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Return code per downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.1. Return code per downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Return code for stitched LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.2. Return code for stitched LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Multipath data sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.1. Multipath data sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.2. Label stack sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.2. Label stack sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3.3. FEC Stack change sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.3. FEC Stack change sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Deprecation of Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4. Deprecation of Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Performing lsp-ping traceroute on tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Performing lsp-ping traceroute on tunnels . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Transit node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Transit node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.1. Addition of a new tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.1. Addition of a new tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1.2. Transition between tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.2. Transition between tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Ingress node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2. Ingress node procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.1. Processing Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . 13 4.2.1. Processing Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . 14
4.2.1.1. Stack Change sub-TLV not present . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.1.1. Stack Change sub-TLV not present . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1.2. Stack Change sub-TLV(s) present . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.1.2. Stack Change sub-TLV(s) present . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.3. Handling of new return codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2.2. Modifications to handling to EGRESS_OK responses. . . 17
4.3. Handling deprecated Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . 16 4.2.3. Handling of new return codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.3. Handling deprecated Downstream Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . 17
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This documents describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute This documents describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute
over mpls tunnels. The techniques outlined in [RFC4379] outline a over mpls tunnels. The techniques outlined in [RFC4379] outline a
traceroute mechanism that includes FEC validation and ECMP path traceroute mechanism that includes FEC validation and ECMP path
discovery. Those mechanisms are insufficient and do not provide discovery. Those mechanisms are insufficient and do not provide
details in case the FEC being traced traverses one or more mpls details in case the FEC being traced traverses one or more mpls
tunnels and in case where LSP stitching is in use. This document tunnels and in case where LSP stitching is in use. This document
defines enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV [RFC4379] to make defines enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV [RFC4379] to make
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 30
followed by a FEC Stack change sub-TLV containing a POP operation. followed by a FEC Stack change sub-TLV containing a POP operation.
One or more POP operations MAY be followed by one or more PUSH One or more POP operations MAY be followed by one or more PUSH
operations. One FEC Stack change sub-TLV MUST be included per FEC operations. One FEC Stack change sub-TLV MUST be included per FEC
stack change. For example, if 2 labels are going to be pushed, stack change. For example, if 2 labels are going to be pushed,
then 1 FEC Stack change sub-TLV MUST be included for each FEC. A then 1 FEC Stack change sub-TLV MUST be included for each FEC. A
FEC splice operation (an operation where 1 FEC ends and another FEC splice operation (an operation where 1 FEC ends and another
FEC starts, see Figure 10) SHOULD be performed by including a POP FEC starts, see Figure 10) SHOULD be performed by including a POP
type FEC Stack change sub-TLV followed by a PUSH type FEC Stack type FEC Stack change sub-TLV followed by a PUSH type FEC Stack
change sub-TLV. change sub-TLV.
A Downstream detailed mapping TLV containing only 1 FEC change A Downstream detailed mapping TLV containing only 1 FEC change
sub-TLV with Pop operation is equivalent to EGRESS_OK for the sub-TLV with Pop operation is equivalent to EGRESS_OK (Return code
outermost FEC in the FEC stack. The ingress router performing the 3, [RFC4379]) for the outermost FEC in the FEC stack. The ingress
lsp trace MUST treat such a case as an EGRESS_OK for the outermost router performing the lsp trace MUST treat such a case as an
FEC. EGRESS_OK for the outermost FEC.
The Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST contain at most 1 FEC The Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST contain at most 1 FEC
Stack change sub-TLV of type Swap. In a FEC Stack change sub-TLV Stack change sub-TLV of type Swap. In a FEC Stack change sub-TLV
with Swap operation, the address-type MAY be set to Unspecified with Swap operation, the address-type MAY be set to Unspecified
and the FEC-tlv length MAY be set to 0. and the FEC-tlv length MAY be set to 0.
FEC tlv Length FEC tlv Length
Length in bytes of the FEC TLV. Length in bytes of the FEC TLV.
Address Type Address Type
skipping to change at page 11, line 35 skipping to change at page 12, line 35
is the peer of the current LSP being traced. If the transit node is the peer of the current LSP being traced. If the transit node
does not know the address of the remote peer, it MAY leave it as does not know the address of the remote peer, it MAY leave it as
unspecified. unspecified.
If the transit node wishes to hide the nature of the tunnel from the If the transit node wishes to hide the nature of the tunnel from the
ingress of the echo-request, then it MAY not want to send details ingress of the echo-request, then it MAY not want to send details
about the new tunnel FEC to the ingress. In such a case, the transit about the new tunnel FEC to the ingress. In such a case, the transit
node SHOULD use the NIL FEC. The echo response would then contain a node SHOULD use the NIL FEC. The echo response would then contain a
FEC Stack change sub-TLV with operation type PUSH and a NIL FEC. The FEC Stack change sub-TLV with operation type PUSH and a NIL FEC. The
value of the label in the NIL FEC MUST be set to zero. The remote value of the label in the NIL FEC MUST be set to zero. The remote
peer address length MUST be set to 0 and the remote peer address type peer address type MUST be set to Unspecified. The transit node
MUST be set to Unspecified. The transit node SHOULD add 1 FEC Stack SHOULD add 1 FEC Stack change sub-TLV of operation type PUSH, per new
change sub-TLV of operation type PUSH, per new tunnel being tunnel being originated at the transit node.
originated at the transit node.
4.1.2. Transition between tunnels 4.1.2. Transition between tunnels
A B C D E F A B C D E F
o -------- o -------- o --------- o -------- o ------- o o -------- o -------- o --------- o -------- o ------- o
\_____/ \______/ \______/ \______/ \_______/ \_____/ \______/ \______/ \______/ \_______/
LDP LDP BGP RSVP RSVP LDP LDP BGP RSVP RSVP
Figure 10: Stitched LSPs Figure 10: Stitched LSPs
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 56 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/