draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-04.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-05.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: 4379 (if approved) Juniper Networks, Inc.
(if approved) G. Swallow Intended status: Standards Track G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Expires: November 27, 2010 Cisco Systems
Expires: April 26, 2010 October 23, 2009 May 26, 2010
Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels Mechanism for performing LSP-Ping over MPLS tunnels
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-04 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-05
Abstract
This document describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute
over mpls tunnels and for traceroute of stitched mpls LSPs. The
techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform
traceroute FEC validation and path discovery for a LSP that goes over
other mpls tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document describes
enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379).
These enhancements along with other procedures outlined in this
document can be used to trace such LSPs.
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. This document may contain material provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 April 26, 2010. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 27, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 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 in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
Abstract include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the BSD License.
This document describes methods for performing lsp-ping traceroute This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
over mpls tunnels and for traceroute of stitched mpls LSPs. The Contributions published or made publicly available before November
techniques outlined in RFC 4379 are insufficient to perform 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
traceroute FEC validation and path discovery for a LSP that goes over material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
other mpls tunnels or for a stitched LSP. This document describes modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
enhancements to the downstream-mapping TLV (defined in RFC 4379). Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
These enhancements along with other procedures outlined in this the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
document can be used to trace such LSPs. 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.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Packet format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. New Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. New Return Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.1. Return code per downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. Return code per downstream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
skipping to change at page 6, line 25 skipping to change at page 6, line 25
3.2. New Return Codes 3.2. New Return Codes
3.2.1. Return code per downstream 3.2.1. Return code per downstream
A new Return Code is being defined "See DDM TLV for Return Code and A new Return Code is being defined "See DDM TLV for Return Code and
Return SubCode" (Section 6.3) to indicate that the Return Code is per Return SubCode" (Section 6.3) to indicate that the Return Code is per
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (Section 3.3). This Return Code MUST Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (Section 3.3). This Return Code MUST
be used only in the message header and MUST be set only in the echo be used only in the message header and MUST be set only in the echo
response message. If the Return Code is set in the echo request response message. If the Return Code is set in the echo request
message, then it SHOULD be ignored. When this Return Code is set, message, then it SHOULD be ignored. When this Return Code is set,
each Detailed Downstream Mapping TLV MUST have an appropriate Return each Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV MUST have an appropriate Return
Code and Return SubCode. This Return Code is to be used when there Code and Return SubCode. This Return Code is to be used when there
are multiple downstreams for a given node (such as P2MP or ECMP), and are multiple downstreams for a given node (such as P2MP or ECMP), and
the node wants to return a different Return Code/Return SubCode for the node wants to return a different Return Code/Return SubCode for
each downstream. each downstream.
3.2.2. Return code for stitched LSPs 3.2.2. Return code for stitched LSPs
When a traceroute is being performed on stitched LSPs Figure 10, the When a traceroute is being performed on stitched LSPs Figure 10, the
stitching point SHOULD indicate the stitching action to the node stitching point SHOULD indicate the stitching action to the node
performing the trace. This is done by setting the Return Code to performing the trace. This is done by setting the Return Code to
"Label switched with FEC change" (Section 6.3). If a node is "Label switched with FEC change" (Section 6.3). If a node is
performing FEC hiding, then it MAY choose to set the Return Code to a performing FEC hiding, then it MAY choose to set the Return Code to a
value other than "Label switched with FEC change". This Return Code value other than "Label switched with FEC change". This Return Code
MUST NOT be used if no Label Stack sub-TLVs (Section 3.3.3) are MUST NOT be used if no Label Stack sub-TLVs (Section 3.3.3) are
present in the Detailed Downstream Mapping TLV(s). This new Return present in the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV(s). This new Return
Code MAY be used for hierarchical LSPs (for indicating start or end Code MAY be used for hierarchical LSPs (for indicating start or end
of an outer LSP). of an outer LSP).
3.3. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV 3.3. Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
A new TLV has been added to the mandatory range of TLVs. The TLV A new TLV has been added to the mandatory range of TLVs. The TLV
type is pending IANA allocation. type is pending IANA allocation.
Type # Value Field Type # Value Field
------ ------------ ------ ------------
skipping to change at page 19, line 20 skipping to change at page 19, line 20
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
6.1. New TLV 6.1. New TLV
IANA is requested to assign TLV type value to the following TLV from IANA is requested to assign TLV type value to the following TLV from
the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched the "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Label Switched
Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub- Paths (LSPs) Parameters - TLVs" registry, "TLVs and sub-TLVs" sub-
registry. registry.
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (See Section 3.3). Suggested value: Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV (See Section 3.3). Suggested value:
21. 20.
6.2. New Sub-TLV types and associated registry 6.2. New Sub-TLV types and associated registry
IANA is requested to create a new registry for the Sub-Type field of IANA is requested to create a new registry for the Sub-Type field of
Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. The valid range for this is Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV. The valid range for this is
0-65535. Assignments in the range 0-16383 and 32768-49161 are made 0-65535. Assignments in the range 0-16383 and 32768-49161 are made
via Standards Action as defined in [RFC3692]; assignments in the via Standards Action as defined in [RFC3692]; assignments in the
range 16384-31743 and 49162-64511 are made via Specification Required range 16384-31743 and 49162-64511 are made via Specification Required
([RFC4379]); values in the range 31744-32767 and 64512-65535 are for ([RFC4379]); values in the range 31744-32767 and 64512-65535 are for
Vendor Private Use, and MUST NOT be allocated. If a sub-TLV has a Vendor Private Use, and MUST NOT be allocated. If a sub-TLV has a
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 41 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/