draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya Internet Engineering Task Force N. Akiya
Internet-Draft Big Switch Networks Internet-Draft Big Switch Networks
Updates: 7110 (if approved) G. Swallow Updates: 7110 (if approved) G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: October 15, 2015 Cisco Systems Expires: November 2, 2015 Cisco Systems
L. Andersson L. Andersson
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
April 13, 2015 May 1, 2015
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute Reply Mode Simplification
draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-02 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-reply-mode-simple-03
Abstract Abstract
The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP) The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Path (LSP)
Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to Ping and Traceroute use the Reply Mode field to signal the method to
be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the "Reply via be used in the MPLS echo reply. This document updates the "Reply via
Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse Specified Path (5)" Reply Mode value to easily indicate the reverse
LSP. This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered LSP. This document also adds an optional TLV which can carry ordered
list of Reply Mode values. list of Reply Mode values.
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 October 15, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Relations to Other LSP Ping/Trace Features . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Relations to Other LSP Ping/Trace Features . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Reply Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Reply Path TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. Example 1: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path 4.1.1. Example 1: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2. Example 2: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path 4.1.2. Example 2: Reply Mode Order TLV Usage with Reply Path
TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Proxy LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2. Proxy LSP Ping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1. Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . 9 4.2.1. Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Echo Request . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Proxy Ping Reply . . . . . 9 4.2.2. Proxy LSR Sending an MPLS Proxy Ping Reply . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. New Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. New Reply Mode Order TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Contributing Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Reply Mode Order TLV Beneficial Scenarios . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Reply Mode Order TLV Beneficial Scenarios . . . . . 11
A.1. Incorrect Forwarding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A.1. Incorrect Forwarding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A.2. Non-Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Scenario . . . . . . . . 12 A.2. Non-Co-Routed Bidirectional LSP Scenario . . . . . . . . 12
skipping to change at page 6, line 22 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6. 0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:7F00/104 for IPv6.
3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV 3.2. Reply Mode Order TLV
This document also introduces a new optional TLV to describe list of This document also introduces a new optional TLV to describe list of
Reply Mode values. The new TLV will contain one or more Reply Mode Reply Mode values. The new TLV will contain one or more Reply Mode
value(s) in preferred order. The first Reply Mode value is the most value(s) in preferred order. The first Reply Mode value is the most
preferred and the last Reply Mode value is the least preferred. preferred and the last Reply Mode value is the least preferred.
Following rules apply when using Reply Mode Order TLV. Following rules apply when using Reply Mode Order TLV.
1. The Reply Mode Order TLV MAY be included in MPLS echo request. 1. The Reply Mode Order TLV MUST NOT be included in MPLS echo reply.
If the initiator LSR receives an MPLS echo reply with the Reply
Mode Order TLV, the initiator LSR MUST ignore the whole Reply
Mode Order TLV and MUST only use the value from the Reply Mode
field of the received MPLS echo reply. It may be beneficial for
implementations to provide counters and/or loggings, with
appropriate log dampening, to record this error case.
2. The Reply Mode Order TLV MUST NOT be included in MPLS echo reply. 2. The Reply Mode Order TLV MAY be included in MPLS echo request.
3. The Reply Mode field of an MPLS echo request MUST be set to a 3. The Reply Mode field of an MPLS echo request MUST be set to a
valid value even when supplying the Reply Mode Order TLV. The valid value even when supplying the Reply Mode Order TLV. The
initiator LSR SHOULD set the Reply Mode field of MPLS echo initiator LSR SHOULD set the Reply Mode field of MPLS echo
request to a value that corresponds to a return path which most request to a value that corresponds to a return path which most
likely to be available, in case the responder LSR does not likely to be available, in case the responder LSR does not
understand the Reply Mode Order TLV. understand the Reply Mode Order TLV.
4. If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV but the 4. If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV but the
TLV is not valid (due to conditions described in the items 6, 8 TLV is not valid (due to conditions described in the items 6, 7,
and 9 immediately below), then the responder LSR MUST only use 8 and 9 immediately below), then the responder LSR MUST ignore
the value described in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo the whole Reply Mode Order TLV and MUST only use the value from
request. the Reply Mode field of the received MPLS echo request. It may
be beneficial for implementations to provide counters and/or
loggings, with appropriate log dampening, to record this error
case.
5. If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV and the 5. If a responder LSR understands the Reply Mode Order TLV and the
TLV is valid, then the responder LSR MUST consider the Reply Mode TLV is valid, then the responder LSR MUST consider the Reply Mode
values described in the TLV and MUST NOT use the value described values described in the TLV and MUST NOT use the value described
in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request. In other in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request. In other
words, a valid Reply Mode Order TLV overrides the value specified words, a valid Reply Mode Order TLV overrides the value specified
in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request. in the Reply Mode field of received MPLS echo request.
6. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value, 6. Reply Mode Order TLV MUST contain at least one Reply Mode value.
and SHOULD contain at least two Reply Mode values.
7. A Reply Mode value, except for Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via 7. A Reply Mode value, except for Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via
Specified Path), MUST NOT be repeated (i.e., MUST NOT appear Specified Path), MUST NOT be repeated (i.e., MUST NOT appear
multiple times) in the Reply Mode Order TLV. multiple times) in the Reply Mode Order TLV.
8. The Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via Specified Path) MAY be included 8. The Reply Mode value 5 (Reply via Specified Path) MAY be included
more than once in the Reply Mode Order TLV. However, in such more than once in the Reply Mode Order TLV. However, in such
case a Reply Path TLV MUST be included for all instances of the case a Reply Path TLV MUST be included for all instances of the
Reply Mode value 5 included in the Reply Mode Order TLV. In Reply Mode value 5 included in the Reply Mode Order TLV. In
other words, 3 instances of the Reply Mode value 5 in the Reply other words, 3 instances of the Reply Mode value 5 in the Reply
Mode Order TLV will require 3 instances of the Reply Path TLVs. Mode Order TLV will require 3 instances of the Reply Path TLVs.
9. The Reply Mode value 1 (Do not reply) MUST NOT be used in the 9. The Reply Mode value 1 (Do not reply) MUST NOT be used in the
Reply Mode Order TLV. Reply Mode Order TLV.
If a responder LSR receives a Reply Mode Order TLV which does not
comply to the rules described above, then the responder LSR MUST
ignore the Reply Mode Order TLV.
The responder LSR is to select the first available return path in The responder LSR is to select the first available return path in
this TLV. Reply Mode value corresponding to the selected return path this TLV. Reply Mode value corresponding to the selected return path
MUST be set in Reply Mode field of MPLS echo reply to communicate MUST be set in Reply Mode field of MPLS echo reply to communicate
back to the initiator LSR which return path was chosen. back to the initiator LSR which return path was chosen.
The format of the TLV is as follows: The format of the 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/