--- 1/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00.txt 2015-07-24 01:14:58.837577883 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-01.txt 2015-07-24 01:14:58.893579235 -0700 @@ -1,24 +1,25 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya -Internet-Draft G. Swallow -Updates: 4379,6424 (if approved) Cisco Systems -Intended status: Standards Track S. Litkowski -Expires: July 12, 2015 B. Decraene +Internet-Draft Big Switch Networks +Updates: 4379,6424 (if approved) G. Swallow +Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems +Expires: January 24, 2016 S. Litkowski + B. Decraene Orange J. Drake Juniper Networks - January 8, 2015 + July 23, 2015 Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace Multipath Support for Link Aggregation Group (LAG) Interfaces - draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-00 + draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-lag-multipath-01 Abstract This document defines an extension to the MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping and Traceroute as specified in RFC 4379. The extension allows the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute to discover and exercise specific paths of Layer 2 (L2) Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) over Link Aggregation Group (LAG) interfaces. This document updates RFC4379 and RFC6424. @@ -37,21 +38,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 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 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on July 12, 2015. + This Internet-Draft will expire on January 24, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -96,21 +97,21 @@ 12.4. Detailed Interface and Label Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . 23 12.4.1. Sub-TLVs for TLV Type TBD4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 12.5. DS Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A.2. Deviating Numbers of LAG Members . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - A.3. LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + A.3. LAG Only on Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 A.4. LAG Only on Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1. Introduction 1.1. Terminology The following acronyms/terms are used in this document: o MPLS - Multiprotocol Label Switching. @@ -1109,22 +1110,21 @@ via Standards Action [RFC5226]. Assignments of Sub-Types in the experimental space is via Specification Required [RFC5226]. 12.5. DS Flags The IANA is requested to assign a new bit number from the "DS flags" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters - TLVs" registry ([IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]). - Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by - [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry]. + Note: the "DS flags" sub-registry is created by [RFC7537]. Bit number Name Reference ---------- ---------------------------------------- --------- TBD5 G: LAG Description Indicator this document 13. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Nagendra Kumar and Sam Aldrin for providing useful comments and suggestions. The authors would like to thank Loa Andersson for performing a detailed review and providing @@ -1136,36 +1136,39 @@ by Mach Chen to generalize and create the LSR Capability TLV was tremendously helpful for this document and likely for future documents extending the MPLS LSP Ping and Traceroute mechanism. The suggestion by Yimin Shen to create two separate validation procedures had a big impact to the contents of this document. 14. References 14.1. Normative References - [I-D.ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry] - Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and - S. Aldrin, "IANA registries for LSP ping Code Points", - draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-registry-00 (work in progress), - November 2014. - [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, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . [RFC4379] Kompella, K. and G. Swallow, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", RFC 4379, - February 2006. + DOI 10.17487/RFC4379, February 2006, + . [RFC6424] Bahadur, N., Kompella, K., and G. Swallow, "Mechanism for Performing Label Switched Path Ping (LSP Ping) over MPLS - Tunnels", RFC 6424, November 2011. + Tunnels", RFC 6424, DOI 10.17487/RFC6424, November 2011, + . + + [RFC7537] Decraene, B., Akiya, N., Pignataro, C., Andersson, L., and + S. Aldrin, "IANA Registries for LSP Ping Code Points", + RFC 7537, DOI 10.17487/RFC7537, May 2015, + . 14.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap] George, W. and C. Pignataro, "Gap Analysis for Operating IPv6-only MPLS Networks", draft-ietf-mpls-ipv6-only-gap-04 (work in progress), November 2014. [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label @@ -1173,21 +1176,22 @@ . [IEEE802.1AX] IEEE Std. 802.1AX, "IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks - Link Aggregation", November 2008. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, - May 2008. + DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, + . Appendix A. LAG with L2 Switch Issues Several flavors of "LAG with L2 switch" provisioning models are described in this section, with MPLS data plane ECMP traversal validation issues with each. A.1. Equal Numbers of LAG Members R1 ==== S1 ==== R2 @@ -1232,23 +1236,23 @@ MPLS echo request sender has knowledge of how to traverse both LAG members from R1 to S1. However, both types of packets will terminate on the non-LAG interface at R2. It becomes impossible for MPLS echo request sender to know that MPLS echo request messages intended to traverse a specific LAG member from R1 to S1 did indeed traverse that LAG member. Authors' Addresses Nobo Akiya - Cisco Systems + Big Switch Networks - Email: nobo@cisco.com + Email: nobo.akiya.dev@gmail.com George Swallow Cisco Systems Email: swallow@cisco.com Stephane Litkowski Orange Email: stephane.litkowski@orange.com