draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02.txt   draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-03.txt 
Network Work group N. Kumar Network Work group N. Kumar
Internet-Draft G. Swallow Internet-Draft G. Swallow
Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro Intended status: Standards Track C. Pignataro
Expires: June 4, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires: December 4, 2017 Cisco Systems, Inc.
N. Akiya N. Akiya
Big Switch Networks Big Switch Networks
S. Kini S. Kini
Individual Individual
H. Gredler H. Gredler
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
M. Chen M. Chen
Huawei Huawei
December 1, 2016 June 2, 2017
Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Trace for Segment Routing Networks Using Label Switched Path (LSP) Ping/Traceroute for Segment Routing Networks
MPLS Dataplane with MPLS Dataplane
draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-02 draft-ietf-mpls-spring-lsp-ping-03
Abstract Abstract
Segment Routing architecture leverages the source routing and Segment Routing architecture leverages the source routing and
tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to MPLS data plane. tunneling paradigms and can be directly applied to MPLS data plane.
A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions A node steers a packet through a controlled set of instructions
called segments, by prepending the packet with a Segment Routing called segments, by prepending the packet with a Segment Routing
header. header.
The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of Segment The segment assignment and forwarding semantic nature of Segment
skipping to change at page 2, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 4
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 June 4, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 4, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
5. Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Segment ID sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1. IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . 9 6. Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . 9
7. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.1. FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. FEC Stack Change sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7.2. FEC Stack Change sub-TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.3. Segment ID POP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.3. Segment ID POP Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Segment ID Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7.4. Segment ID Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.5. TTL Consideration for traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.5. TTL Consideration for traceroute . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Issues with non-forwarding labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Issues with non-forwarding labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices . . . 14 9. Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices . . . 15
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed 10.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed
Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Mapping TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.3. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.3. Return Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] introduces and explains Segment [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] introduces and explains Segment
Routing architecture that leverages the source routing and tunneling Routing architecture that leverages the source routing and tunneling
paradigms. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of paradigms. A node steers a packet through a controlled set of
instructions called segments, by prepending the packet with Segment instructions called segments, by prepending the packet with Segment
Routing header. A detailed definition about Segment Routing Routing header. A detailed definition about Segment Routing
architecture is available in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] architecture is available in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
As defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], the Segment As defined in [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls], the Segment
Routing architecture can be directly applied to MPLS data plane in a Routing architecture can be directly applied to MPLS data plane in a
way that, the Segment identifier (Segment ID) will be of 20-bits size way that, the Segment identifier (Segment ID) will be of 20-bits size
and Segment Routing header is the label stack. and Segment Routing header is the label stack.
"Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures" "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures"
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] defines a simple and efficient mechanism [RFC8029] defines a simple and efficient mechanism to detect data
to detect data plane failures in Label Switched Paths (LSP) by plane failures in Label Switched Paths (LSP) by specifying
specifying information to be carried in an MPLS "echo request" and information to be carried in an MPLS "echo request" and "echo reply"
"echo reply" for the purposes of fault detection and isolation. for the purposes of fault detection and isolation. Mechanisms for
Mechanisms for reliably sending the echo reply are defined. The reliably sending the echo reply are defined. The functionality
functionality defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] is modeled after defined in [RFC8029] is modeled after the ping/traceroute paradigm
the ping/traceroute paradigm (ICMP echo request [RFC0792]) and is (ICMP echo request [RFC0792]) and is typically referred to as LSP
typically referred to as LSP ping and LSP traceroute. ping and LSP traceroute. [RFC8029] supports hierarchal and stitching
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] supports hierarchal and stitching LSPs. LSPs.
Unlike LDP or RSVP which are the other well-known MPLS control plane Unlike LDP or RSVP which are the other well-known MPLS control plane
protocols, segment assignment in Segment Routing architecture is not protocols, segment assignment in Segment Routing architecture is not
hop-by-hop basis. hop-by-hop basis.
This nature of Segment Routing raises additional consideration for This nature of Segment Routing raises additional consideration for
fault detection and isolation in Segment Routing network. This fault detection and isolation in Segment Routing network. This
document illustrates the problem and describe a mechanism to perform document illustrates the problem and describe a mechanism to perform
LSP Ping and Traceroute on Segment Routing network over MPLS data LSP Ping and Traceroute on Segment Routing network over MPLS data
plane. plane.
2. Requirements notation 2. Requirements notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. Terminology 3. Terminology
This document uses the terminologies defined in This document uses the terminologies defined in
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis], and so [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing], [RFC8029], and so the readers are
the readers are expected to be familiar with the same. expected to be familiar with the same.
4. Challenges with Existing mechanism 4. Challenges with Existing mechanism
This document defines sub-TLVs for the Target FEC Stack TLV and This document defines sub-TLVs for the Target Forwarding Equivalence
explains how they can be used to tackle below challenges. Class (FEC) Stack TLV and explains how they can be used to tackle
below challenges.
4.1. Path validation in Segment Routing networks 4.1. Path validation in Segment Routing networks
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] defines the OAM machinery that helps with [RFC8029] defines the OAM machinery that helps with fault detection
fault detection and isolation in MPLS dataplane path with the use of and isolation in MPLS dataplane path with the use of various Target
various Target FEC Stack Sub-TLV that are carried in MPLS Echo FEC Stack Sub-TLV that are carried in MPLS Echo Request packets and
Request packets and used by the responder for FEC validation. While used by the responder for FEC validation. While it is obvious that
it is obvious that new Sub-TLVs need to be assigned, the unique new Sub-TLVs need to be assigned, the unique nature of Segment
nature of Segment Routing architecture raises a need for additional Routing architecture raises a need for additional machinery for path
machinery for path validation. This section discuss the challenges validation. This section discuss the challenges as below:
as below:
L1 L1
+--------+ +--------+
| L2 | | L2 |
R3-------R6 R3-------R6
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
R1----R2 R7----R8 R1----R2 R7----R8
\ / \ /
\ / \ /
R4-------R5 R4-------R5
Figure 1: Segment Routing network Figure 1: Segment Routing network
The Node segment IDs for R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are 5001, The Node segment IDs for R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are 5001,
5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5008 respectively. 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, 5006, 5007, 5008 respectively.
9136 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R3 to R6 over link L1.
9236 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R3 to R6 over link L2.
9124 --> Adjacency segment ID from R2 to R4.
9123 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R2 to R3. 9136 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R3 to R6 over link L1.
9236 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R3 to R6 over link L2.
9124 --> Adjacency segment ID from R2 to R4.
9123 --> Adjacency Segment ID from R2 to R3.
The forwarding semantic of Adjacency Segment ID is to pop the segment The forwarding semantic of Adjacency Segment ID is to pop the segment
ID and send the packet to a specific neighbor over a specific link. ID and send the packet to a specific neighbor over a specific link.
A malfunctioning node may forward packets using Adjacency Segment ID A malfunctioning node may forward packets using Adjacency Segment ID
to incorrect neighbor or over incorrect link. Exposed segment ID to incorrect neighbor or over incorrect link. Exposed segment ID
(after incorrectly forwarded Adjacency Segment ID) might still allow (after incorrectly forwarded Adjacency Segment ID) might still allow
such packet to reach the intended destination, although the intended such packet to reach the intended destination, although the intended
strict traversal has been broken. strict traversal has been broken.
Assume in above topology, R1 sends traffic with segment stack as Assume in above topology, R1 sends traffic with segment stack as
{9124, 5008} so that the path taken will be R1-R2-R4-R5-R7-R8. If {9124, 5008} so that the path taken will be R1-R2-R4-R5-R7-R8. If
the Adjacency Segment ID 9124 is misprogrammed in R2 to send the the Adjacency Segment ID 9124 is misprogrammed in R2 to send the
packet to R1 or R3, it will still be delivered to R8 but is not via packet to R1 or R3, it will still be delivered to R8 but is not via
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 35
represents a service to be applied along the path. Since these represents a service to be applied along the path. Since these
labels are part of the label stack, they can influence the path taken labels are part of the label stack, they can influence the path taken
by a packet and consequently have implications on MPLS OAM. Service by a packet and consequently have implications on MPLS OAM. Service
Label is left for future study. Label is left for future study.
5. Segment ID sub-TLV 5. Segment ID sub-TLV
The format of the following Segment ID sub-TLVs follows the The format of the following Segment ID sub-TLVs follows the
philosophy of Target FEC Stack TLV carrying FECs corresponding to philosophy of Target FEC Stack TLV carrying FECs corresponding to
each label in the label stack. When operated with the procedures each label in the label stack. When operated with the procedures
defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis], this allows LSP ping/ defined in [RFC8029], this allows LSP ping/traceroute operations to
traceroute operations to function when Target FEC Stack TLV contains function when Target FEC Stack TLV contains more FECs than received
more FECs than received label stack at responder nodes. label stack at responder nodes.
Three new sub-TLVs are defined for Target FEC Stack TLVs (Type 1), Three new sub-TLVs are defined for Target FEC Stack TLVs (Type 1),
Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 16) and Reply Path TLV (Type Reverse-Path Target FEC Stack TLV (Type 16) and Reply Path TLV (Type
21). 21).
sub-Type Value Field sub-Type Value Field
-------- --------------- -------- ---------------
34 IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID 34 IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
35 IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID 35 IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
36 IGP-Adjacency Segment ID 36 IGP-Adjacency Segment ID
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 31
IPv4 Anycast address. If the prefix is shorter than 32 bits, IPv4 Anycast address. If the prefix is shorter than 32 bits,
trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero. trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero.
Prefix Length Prefix Length
The Prefix Length field is one octet, it gives the length of the The Prefix Length field is one octet, it gives the length of the
prefix in bits (values can be 1 - 32). prefix in bits (values can be 1 - 32).
Protocol Protocol
Set to 1 if the IGP protocol is OSPF and 2 if IGP protocol is Set to 1, if the Responder MUST perform FEC validation using OSPF
ISIS. as IGP protocol. Set to 2, if the Responder MUST perform Egress
FEC validation using ISIS as IGP protocol. Set to 0, if Responder
can use any IGP protocol for Egress FEC validation.
5.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID 5.2. IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
The format is as below: The format is as below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| IPv6 Prefix | | IPv6 Prefix |
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 30
IPv4 Anycast address. If the prefix is shorter than 128 bits, IPv4 Anycast address. If the prefix is shorter than 128 bits,
trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero. trailing bits SHOULD be set to zero.
Prefix Length Prefix Length
The Prefix Length field is one octet, it gives the length of the The Prefix Length field is one octet, it gives the length of the
prefix in bits (values can be 1 - 128). prefix in bits (values can be 1 - 128).
Protocol Protocol
Set to 1 if the IGP protocol is OSPF and 2 if IGP protocol is Set to 1, if the Responder MUST perform FEC validation using OSPF
ISIS. as IGP protocol. Set to 2, if the Responder MUST perform Egress
FEC validation using ISIS as IGP protocol. Set to 0, if Responder
can use any IGP protocol for Egress FEC validation.
5.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID 5.3. IGP-Adjacency Segment ID
The format is as below: The format is as below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Adj. Type | Protocol | Reserved | | Adj. Type | Protocol | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 8, line 27
~ ~ ~ ~
| Receiving Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets) | | Receiving Node Identifier (4 or 6 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Adj. Type (Adjacency Type) Adj. Type (Adjacency Type)
Set to 1, when the Adjacency Segment is Parallel Adjacency as Set to 1, when the Adjacency Segment is Parallel Adjacency as
defined in section 3.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]. defined in section 3.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing].
Set to 4, when the Adjacency segment is IPv4 based and is not a Set to 4, when the Adjacency segment is IPv4 based and is not a
parallel adjacency. Set to 6, when the Adjacency segment is IPv6 parallel adjacency. Set to 6, when the Adjacency segment is IPv6
based and is not a parallel adjacency. based and is not a parallel adjacency. Set to 0, when the
Adjacency segment is over unnumbered interface.
Protocol Protocol
Set to 1 if the IGP protocol is OSPF and 2 if IGP protocol is ISIS Set to 1, if the Responder MUST perform FEC validation using OSPF
as IGP protocol. Set to 2, if the Responder MUST perform Egress
FEC validation using ISIS as IGP protocol. Set to 0, if Responder
can use any IGP protocol for Egress FEC validation.
Local Interface ID Local Interface ID
An identifier that is assigned by local LSR for a link on which An identifier that is assigned by local LSR for a link on which
Adjacency Segment ID is bound. This field is set to local link Adjacency Segment ID is bound. This field is set to local link
address (IPv4 or IPv6). Incase of unnumbered, 32 bit link address (IPv4 or IPv6). Incase of unnumbered, 32 bit link
identifier defined in [RFC4203], [RFC5307] is used. If the identifier defined in [RFC4203], [RFC5307] is used. If the
Adjacency Segment ID represents parallel adjacencies Adjacency Segment ID represents parallel adjacencies
(Section 3.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]) this field (Section 3.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]) this field
MUST be set to zero. MUST be set to 4 bytes of zero.
Remote Interface ID Remote Interface ID
An identifier that is assigned by remote LSR for a link on which An identifier that is assigned by remote LSR for a link on which
Adjacency Segment ID is bound. This field is set to remote Adjacency Segment ID is bound. This field is set to remote
(downstream neighbor) link address (IPv4 or IPv6). In case of (downstream neighbor) link address (IPv4 or IPv6). In case of
unnumbered, 32 bit link identifier defined in [RFC4203], [RFC5307] unnumbered, 32 bit link identifier defined in [RFC4203], [RFC5307]
is used. If the Adjacency Segment ID represents parallel is used. If the Adjacency Segment ID represents parallel
adjacencies (Section 3.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]) adjacencies (Section 3.5.1 of [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing])
this field MUST be set to zero. this field MUST be set to 4 bytes of zero.
Advertising Node Identifier Advertising Node Identifier
Specifies the advertising node identifier. When Protocol is set Specifies the advertising node identifier. When Protocol is set
to 1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF Router ID and if to 1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF Router ID and if
protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit ISIS System ID. protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit ISIS System ID.
Receiving Node Identifier Receiving Node Identifier
Specifies the downstream node identifier. When Protocol is set to Specifies the downstream node identifier. When Protocol is set to
1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF Router ID and if 1, then the 32 rightmost bits represent OSPF Router ID and if
protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit ISIS System ID. protocol is set to 2, this field carries 48 bit ISIS System ID.
6. Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV 6. Extension to Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV
In an echo reply, the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV In an echo reply, the Downstream Mapping TLV [RFC8029] is used to
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] is used to report for each interface over report for each interface over which a FEC could be forwarded. For a
which a FEC could be forwarded. For a FEC, there are multiple FEC, there are multiple protocols that may be used to distribute
protocols that may be used to distribute label mapping. The label mapping. The "Protocol" field of the Downstream Detailed
"Protocol" field of the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV is used to Mapping TLV is used to return the protocol that is used to distribute
return the protocol that is used to distribute a specific a label. a specific a label. The following protocols are defined in section
The following protocols are defined in section 3.4.1.2 of 3.4.1.2 of [RFC8029]:
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]:
Protocol # Signaling Protocol Protocol # Signaling Protocol
---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------
0 Unknown 0 Unknown
1 Static 1 Static
2 BGP 2 BGP
3 LDP 3 LDP
4 RSVP-TE 4 RSVP-TE
With segment routing, OSPF or ISIS can be used for label With segment routing, OSPF or ISIS can be used for label
distribution, this document adds two new protocols as follows: distribution, this document adds two new protocols as follows:
Protocol # Signaling Protocol Protocol # Signaling Protocol
---------- ------------------ ---------- ------------------
TBD5 OSPF 5 OSPF
TBD6 ISIS 6 ISIS
7. Procedures 7. Procedures
This section describes aspects of LSP Ping and traceroute operations This section describes aspects of LSP Ping and traceroute operations
that require further considerations beyond that require further considerations beyond [RFC8029].
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis].
7.1. FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV 7.1. FECs in Target FEC Stack TLV
When LSP echo request packets are generated by an initiator, FECs When LSP echo request packets are generated by an initiator, FECs
carried in Target FEC Stack TLV may need to have deviating contents. carried in Target FEC Stack TLV may need to have deviating contents.
This document outlines expected Target FEC Stack TLV construction This document outlines expected Target FEC Stack TLV construction
mechanics by initiator for known scenarios. mechanics by initiator for known scenarios.
Ping Ping
skipping to change at page 10, line 30 skipping to change at page 10, line 30
Traceroute Traceroute
Initiator MUST initially include FECs corresponding to all of Initiator MUST initially include FECs corresponding to all of
segments imposed in the label stack. segments imposed in the label stack.
When a received echo reply contains FEC Stack Change TLV with When a received echo reply contains FEC Stack Change TLV with
one or more of original segment(s) being popped, initiator MAY one or more of original segment(s) being popped, initiator MAY
remove corresponding FEC(s) from Target FEC Stack TLV in the remove corresponding FEC(s) from Target FEC Stack TLV in the
next (TTL+1) traceroute request as defined in section 4.6 of next (TTL+1) traceroute request as defined in section 4.6 of
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]. [RFC8029].
When a received echo reply does not contain FEC Stack Change When a received echo reply does not contain FEC Stack Change
TLV, initiator MUST NOT attempt to remove FEC(s) from Target TLV, initiator MUST NOT attempt to remove FEC(s) from Target
FEC Stack TLV in the next (TTL+1) traceroute request. FEC Stack TLV in the next (TTL+1) traceroute request.
7.2. FEC Stack Change sub-TLV 7.2. FEC Stack Change sub-TLV
Section 3.4.1.3 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] defines FEC Stack Section 3.4.1.3 of [RFC8029] defines FEC Stack Change sub-TLV that a
Change sub-TLV that a router must include when the FEC stack changes. router must include when the FEC stack changes.
The network node which advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible The network node which advertised the Node Segment ID is responsible
for generating FEC Stack Change sub-TLV of &pop& operation for Node for generating FEC Stack Change sub-TLV of &pop& operation for Node
Segment ID, regardless of if PHP is enabled or not. Segment ID, regardless of if PHP is enabled or not.
The network node that is immediate downstream of the node which The network node that is immediate downstream of the node which
advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating FEC advertised the Adjacency Segment ID is responsible for generating FEC
Stack Change sub-TLV of &pop& operation for Adjacency Segment ID. Stack Change sub-TLV of &pop& operation for Adjacency Segment ID.
7.3. Segment ID POP Operation 7.3. Segment ID POP Operation
The forwarding semantic of Node Segment ID with PHP flag is The forwarding semantic of Node Segment ID with PHP flag is
equivalent to usage of implicit Null in MPLS protocols. Adjacency equivalent to usage of implicit Null in MPLS protocols. Adjacency
Segment ID is also similar in a sense that it can be thought as next Segment ID is also similar in a sense that it can be thought as next
hop destined locally allocated segment that has PHP enabled. hop destined locally allocated segment that has PHP enabled.
Procedures described in Section 4.4 of [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] Procedures described in Section 4.4 of [RFC8029] relies on Stack-D
relies on Stack-D and Stack-R explicitly having Implicit Null value. and Stack-R explicitly having Implicit Null value. It may simplify
It may simplify implementations to reuse Implicit Null for Node implementations to reuse Implicit Null for Node Segment ID PHP and
Segment ID PHP and Adjacency Segment ID cases. Adjacency Segment ID cases.
7.4. Segment ID Check 7.4. Segment ID Check
This section updates the procedure defined in Step 6 of section 4.4. This section updates the procedure defined in Step 6 of section 4.4.
of [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] of [RFC8029]
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Stack Sub-TLV at FEC- If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Stack Sub-TLV at FEC-
stack-depth is 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), the responder stack-depth is 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), the responder
should set Best return code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not should set Best return code to 10, "Mapping for this FEC is not
the given label at stack-depth <RSC>" if any below conditions the given label at stack-depth <RSC>" if any below conditions
fail: fail:
/* The responder LSR is to check if it is the egress of the IPv4 /* The responder LSR is to check if it is the egress of the IPv4
IGP-Prefix Segment ID described in the Target FEC Stack Sub-TLV, IGP-Prefix Segment ID described in the Target FEC Stack Sub-TLV,
and if the FEC was advertised with the PHP bit set.*/ and if the FEC was advertised with the PHP bit set.*/
* Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4 Prefix. * Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4 Prefix by
IGP Protocol{
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.
* Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised with No-PHP flag { * Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised with No-PHP flag {
+ When Protocol is OSPF, NP-flag defined in Section 5 of + When Protocol is OSPF, NP-flag defined in Section 5 of
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] should be set to [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] should be set to
0. 0.
+ When Protocol is ISIS, P-Flag defined in Section 2.1 of + When Protocol is ISIS, P-Flag defined in Section 2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] should be set to [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] should be set to
0. 0.
* } * }
If the Label-stack-depth is more than 0 and Target FEC Stack Sub- If the Label-stack-depth is more than 0 and Target FEC Stack Sub-
TLV at FEC-stack-depth is 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), the TLV at FEC-stack-depth is 34 (IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), the
responder is to set Best return code to 10 if any below conditions responder is to set Best return code to 10 if any below conditions
fail: fail:
* Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4 Prefix. * Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4 Prefix by
IGP Protocol{
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Sub-TLV at FEC-stack- If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC Sub-TLV at FEC-stack-
depth is 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), set Best return code to depth is 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), set Best return code to
10 if any below conditions fail: 10 if any below conditions fail:
/* The LSR needs to check if its being a tail-end for the LSP and /* The LSR needs to check if its being a tail-end for the LSP and
have the prefix advertised with PHP bit set*/ have the prefix advertised with PHP bit set*/
* Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv6 Prefix. * Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv6 Prefix by
IGP Protocol{
+ When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.
* Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised of PHP bit. * Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised of PHP bit.
If the Label-stack-depth is more than 0 and Target FEC Sub-TLV at If the Label-stack-depth is more than 0 and Target FEC Sub-TLV at
FEC-stack-depth is 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), set Best FEC-stack-depth is 35 (IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID), set Best
return code to 10 if any below conditions fail: return code to 10 if any below conditions fail:
* Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv6 Prefix. * Validate that Node Segment ID is advertised for IPv4 Prefix by
IGP Protocol{
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.
+ When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID
Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.
If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack- If the Label-stack-depth is 0 and Target FEC sub-TLV at FEC-stack-
depth is 36 (Adjacency Segment ID), set Best return code to TBD7 depth is 36 (Adjacency Segment ID), set Best return code to TBD7
(Section 10.3) if any below conditions fail: (Section 10.3) if any below conditions fail:
When the Adj. Type is 1 (Parallel Adjacency): When the Adj. Type is 1 (Parallel Adjacency):
+ Validate that Receiving Node Identifier is local IGP + Validate that Receiving Node Identifier is local IGP
identifier. identifier.
+ Validate that Adjacency Segment ID is advertised by + Validate that Adjacency Segment ID is advertised by
Advertising Node Identifier of Protocol in local IGP Advertising Node Identifier of Protocol in local IGP
database. database {
- When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP protocol.
- When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.
- When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.
When the Adj. Type is 4 or 6: When the Adj. Type is 4 or 6:
+ Validate that Remote Interface ID matches the local + Validate that Remote Interface ID matches the local
identifier of the interface (Interface-I) on which the identifier of the interface (Interface-I) on which the
packet was received. packet was received.
+ Validate that Receiving Node Identifier is local IGP + Validate that Receiving Node Identifier is local IGP
identifier. identifier.
+ Validate that IGP-Adjacency Segment ID is advertised by + Validate that IGP-Adjacency Segment ID is advertised by
Advertising Node Identifier of Protocol in local IGP Advertising Node Identifier of Protocol in local IGP
database. database {
- When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
ID Sub-TLV is 0, Use any locally enabled IGP protocol.
- When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
ID Sub-TLV is 1, Use OSPF as IGP protocol.
- When protocol field in received IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment
ID Sub-TLV is 2, Use ISIS as IGP protocol.
7.5. TTL Consideration for traceroute 7.5. TTL Consideration for traceroute
LSP Traceroute operation can properly traverse every hop of Segment LSP Traceroute operation can properly traverse every hop of Segment
Routing network in Uniform Model described in [RFC3443]. If one or Routing network in Uniform Model described in [RFC3443]. If one or
more LSRs employ Short Pipe Model described in [RFC3443], then LSP more LSRs employ Short Pipe Model described in [RFC3443], then LSP
Traceroute may not be able to properly traverse every hop of Segment Traceroute may not be able to properly traverse every hop of Segment
Routing network due to absence of TTL copy operation when outer label Routing network due to absence of TTL copy operation when outer label
is popped. Short Pipe being the most commonly used model. The is popped. Short Pipe being the most commonly used model. The
following TTL manipulation technique MAY be used when Short Pipe following TTL manipulation technique MAY be used when Short Pipe
model is used. model is used.
When tracing a LSP according to the procedures in When tracing a LSP according to the procedures in [RFC8029] the TTL
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] the TTL is incremented by one in order to is incremented by one in order to trace the path sequentially along
trace the path sequentially along the LSP. However when a source the LSP. However when a source routed LSP has to be traced there are
routed LSP has to be traced there are as many TTLs as there are as many TTLs as there are labels in the stack. The LSR that
labels in the stack. The LSR that initiates the traceroute SHOULD initiates the traceroute SHOULD start by setting the TTL to 1 for the
start by setting the TTL to 1 for the tunnel in the LSP's label stack tunnel in the LSP's label stack it wants to start the tracing from,
it wants to start the tracing from, the TTL of all outer labels in the TTL of all outer labels in the stack to the max value, and the
the stack to the max value, and the TTL of all the inner labels in TTL of all the inner labels in the stack to zero. Thus a typical
the stack to zero. Thus a typical start to the traceroute would have start to the traceroute would have a TTL of 1 for the outermost label
a TTL of 1 for the outermost label and all the inner labels would and all the inner labels would have TTL 0. If the FEC Stack TLV is
have TTL 0. If the FEC Stack TLV is included it should contain only included it should contain only those for the inner stacked tunnels.
those for the inner stacked tunnels. The Return Code/Subcode and FEC The Return Code/Subcode and FEC Stack Change TLV should be used to
Stack Change TLV should be used to diagnose the tunnel as described diagnose the tunnel as described in [RFC8029]. When the tracing of a
in [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]. When the tracing of a tunnel in the tunnel in the stack is complete, then the next tunnel in the stack
stack is complete, then the next tunnel in the stack should be should be traced. The end of a tunnel can be detected from the
traced. The end of a tunnel can be detected from the "Return Code" "Return Code" when it indicates that the responding LSR is an egress
when it indicates that the responding LSR is an egress for the stack for the stack at depth 1. Thus the traceroute procedures in
at depth 1. Thus the traceroute procedures in [RFC8029] can be recursively applied to traceroute a source routed
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] can be recursively applied to traceroute a LSP.
source routed LSP.
8. Issues with non-forwarding labels 8. Issues with non-forwarding labels
Source stacking can be optionally used to apply services on the Source stacking can be optionally used to apply services on the
packet at a LSR along the path, where a label in the stack is used to packet at a LSR along the path, where a label in the stack is used to
trigger service application. A data plane failure detection and trigger service application. A data plane failure detection and
isolation mechanism should provide its functionality without applying isolation mechanism should provide its functionality without applying
these services. This is mandatory for services that are stateful, these services. This is mandatory for services that are stateful,
though for stateless services [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] could be though for stateless services [RFC8029] could be used as-is. It MAY
used as-is. It MAY also provide a mechanism to detect and isolate also provide a mechanism to detect and isolate faults within the
faults within the service function itself. service function itself.
How a node treats Service label is outside the scope of this document How a node treats Service label is outside the scope of this document
and will be included in this or a different document later. and will be included in this or a different document later.
9. Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices 9. Backward Compatibility with non Segment Routing devices
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] describes how Segment [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] describes how Segment
Routing operates in network where SR-capable and non-SR-capable nodes Routing operates in network where SR-capable and non-SR-capable nodes
coexist. In such networks, there may not be any FEC mapping in the coexist. In such networks, there may not be any FEC mapping in the
responder when the Initiator is SR-capable while the responder is not responder when the Initiator is SR-capable while the responder is not
(or vice-versa). But this is not different from RSVP and LDP interop (or vice-versa). But this is not different from RSVP and LDP interop
scenarios. When LSP Ping is triggered, the responder will set the scenarios. When LSP Ping is triggered, the responder will set the
FEC-return-code to Return 4, "Replying router has no mapping for the FEC-return-code to Return 4, "Replying router has no mapping for the
FEC at stack-depth". FEC at stack-depth".
Similarly when SR-capable node assigns Adj-SID for non-SR-capable Similarly when SR-capable node assigns Adj-SID for non-SR-capable
node, LSP trace may fail as the non-SR-capable node is not aware of node, LSP traceroute may fail as the non-SR-capable node is not aware
"IGP Adjacency Segment ID" sub-TLV and may not reply with FEC Stack of "IGP Adjacency Segment ID" sub-TLV and may not reply with FEC
change. This may result in any further downstream nodes to reply Stack change. This may result in any further downstream nodes to
back with Return-code as 4, "Replying router has no mapping for the reply back with Return-code as 4, "Replying router has no mapping for
FEC at stack-depth". the FEC at stack-depth".
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
10.1. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs 10.1. New Target FEC Stack Sub-TLVs
IANA is requested to assign three new sub-TLVs from "Sub-TLVs for TLV IANA is requested to assign three new Sub-TLVs from "Sub-TLVs for TLV
Types 1, 16 and 21" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label Types 1, 16 and 21" sub-registry from the "Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters" (IANA-
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] registry. MPLS-LSP-PING) registry.
Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference Sub-Type Sub-TLV Name Reference
---------- ----------------- ------------ ---------- ----------------- ------------
34 IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Section 5.1 (this document) 34 IPv4 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Section 5.1 (this document)
35 IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Section 5.2 (this document) 35 IPv6 IGP-Prefix Segment ID Section 5.2 (this document)
36 IGP-Adjacency Segment ID Section 5.3 (this document) 36 IGP-Adjacency Segment ID Section 5.3 (this document)
10.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping 10.2. Protocol in Label Stack Sub-TLV of Downstream Detailed Mapping
TLV TLV
IANA is requested to create a new "Protocol" registry under the Label IANA is requested to create a new "Protocol" registry under the
Stack Sub-TLV of the Downstream Detailed Mapping TLV in the "Multi- "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Ping Parameters" registry.
Parameters" registry [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING].
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
------ ---------- ------------ ---------- ----------------- ------------
0 Unknown Section 3.4.2.1 [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] 0 Unknown Section 3.4.2.1 (RFC8029)
1 Static Section 3.4.2.1 [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] 1 Static Section 3.4.2.1 (RFC8029)
2 BGP Section 3.4.2.1 [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] 2 BGP Section 3.4.2.1 (RFC8029)
3 LDP Section 3.4.2.1 [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] 3 LDP Section 3.4.2.1 (RFC8029)
4 RSVP-TE Section 3.4.2.1 [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] 4 RSVP-TE Section 3.4.2.1 (RFC8029)
TBD5 OSPF Section 6 (this document) 5 OSPF Section 6 (this document)
TBD6 ISIS Section 6 (this document) 6 ISIS Section 6 (this document)
10.3. Return Code 10.3. Return Code
IANA is requested to assign a new Return Code from the "Multi- IANA is requested to assign a new Return Code from the "Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping
Parameters" [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] in "Return Codes" Sub-registry. Parameters" in "Return Codes" Sub-registry.
Value Meaning Reference Value Meaning Reference
------- ----------------- ------------ ---------- ----------------- ------------
TBD7 Mapping for this FEC is not associated Section 7.4 TBD7 Mapping for this FEC is not associated Section 7.4
with the incoming interface (this document) with the incoming interface (this document)
Note to the RFC Editor (please remove before publication): IANA has
made early allocation for sub-type 34, 35 and 35. The early
allocation expires 2017-09-15.
11. Security Considerations 11. Security Considerations
This document defines additional Sub-TLVs and follows the mechanism This document defines additional Sub-TLVs and follows the mechanism
defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]. So all the security defined in [RFC8029]. So all the security consideration defined in
consideration defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis] will be [RFC8029] will be applicable for this document and in addition it
applicable for this document and in addition it does not impose any does not impose any security challenges to be considered.
security challenges to be considered.
12. Acknowledgement 12. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi, Les Ginsberg, Balaji The authors would like to thank Stefano Previdi, Les Ginsberg, Balaji
Rajagopalan, Harish Sitaraman, Curtis Villamizar, Pranjal Dutta, Rajagopalan, Harish Sitaraman, Curtis Villamizar, Pranjal Dutta,
Lizhong Jin, Tom Petch, and Mustapha Aissaoui for their review and Lizhong Jin, Tom Petch, Victor Ji and Mustapha Aissaoui for their
comments. review and comments.
The authors wold like to thank Loa Andersson for his comments and The authors wold like to thank Loa Andersson for his comments and
recommendation to merge drafts. recommendation to merge drafts.
13. Contributors 13. Contributors
The following are key contributors to this document: The following are key contributors to this document:
Tarek Saad, Cisco Systems, Inc. Tarek Saad, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Siva Sivabalan, Cisco Systems, Inc. Siva Sivabalan, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Balaji Rajagopalan, Juniper Networks Balaji Rajagopalan, Juniper Networks
Faisal Iqbal, Cisco Systems, Inc. Faisal Iqbal, Cisco Systems, Inc.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
skipping to change at page 16, line 13 skipping to change at page 17, line 28
Faisal Iqbal, Cisco Systems, Inc. Faisal Iqbal, Cisco Systems, Inc.
14. References 14. References
14.1. Normative References 14.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-isis-segment-routing-extensions]
Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Bashandy, A., Gredler, H.,
Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com, Litkowski, S., Decraene, B., and j. jefftant@gmail.com,
"IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis- "IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-isis-
segment-routing-extensions-09 (work in progress), October segment-routing-extensions-12 (work in progress), April
2016. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-mpls-rfc4379bis]
Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multi-Protocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data Plane Failures", draft-ietf-mpls-
rfc4379bis-09 (work in progress), October 2016.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions] [I-D.ietf-ospf-segment-routing-extensions]
Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H., Psenak, P., Previdi, S., Filsfils, C., Gredler, H.,
Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment- Extensions for Segment Routing", draft-ietf-ospf-segment-
routing-extensions-10 (work in progress), October 2016. routing-extensions-16 (work in progress), May 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Decraene, B., Litkowski, S.,
and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf- and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing Architecture", draft-ietf-
spring-segment-routing-10 (work in progress), November spring-segment-routing-11 (work in progress), February
2016. 2017.
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B.,
Litkowski, S., Horneffer, M., Shakir, R., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment Routing with MPLS
jefftant@gmail.com, j., and E. Crabbe, "Segment Routing data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-mpls-08
with MPLS data plane", draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing- (work in progress), March 2017.
mpls-05 (work in progress), July 2016.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing [RFC3443] Agarwal, P. and B. Akyol, "Time To Live (TTL) Processing
in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks", in Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Networks",
RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003, RFC 3443, DOI 10.17487/RFC3443, January 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3443>.
skipping to change at page 17, line 15 skipping to change at page 18, line 20
[RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in [RFC4203] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
[RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions [RFC5307] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "IS-IS Extensions
in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008, (GMPLS)", RFC 5307, DOI 10.17487/RFC5307, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5307>.
[RFC8029] Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
14.2. Informative References 14.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop] [I-D.ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop]
Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and Filsfils, C., Previdi, S., Bashandy, A., Decraene, B., and
S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP", S. Litkowski, "Segment Routing interworking with LDP",
draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-04 (work in draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-ldp-interop-07 (work in
progress), July 2016. progress), May 2017.
[IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING] [IANA-MPLS-LSP-PING]
IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label IANA, "Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label
Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters", Switched Paths (LSPs) Ping Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/ <http://www.iana.org/assignments/mpls-lsp-ping-parameters/
mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>. mpls-lsp-ping-parameters.xhtml>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
 End of changes. 56 change blocks. 
161 lines changed or deleted 224 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/